Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Emulation (Games) Classic Games (Games)

All Emulation is Illegal 111

Posted by Zonk from the opinions-for-everyone! dept.
jvalenzu writes "Matt Matthews is at it again! The venerable owner of curmudgeongamer.com has posted his latest missive, All Emulation is Illegal." From the article: "Now, if this is how we interpret the law, then practically every use of a videogame system emulator is illegal. Even a user who dumps the contents of a videogame cartridge for an Atari 2600 game he owns to a ROM file cannot use that ROM file with an emulator unless the original's loss requires resorting to the archival copy. If true, then even my attempt to stay legal by buying games and only then using an emulator to play them is way out of bounds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All Emulation is Illegal More

All Emulation is Illegal

Comments Filter:

  • His argument in a nutshell (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @12:52PM (#11494134) Journal

    Well, that seems rather straightforward and restrictive. That [rom] file is for archival purposes only. Unless the definition is more flexible than it appears, that means the owner of an original may make a a copy and that copy cannot be used unless the original is destroyed or damaged. (Perhaps even that is reading too much into it?) So as long as you have an original, that copy should be sitting somewhere safe until needed to replace the original, should that event ever arise.

    The law in question:

    ...that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only

    Basically, if you interpret "archival purposes" as "keeping it unused until your original breaks down and dies," then all emulation is legal.

    However, that's a bunch of crap. I have a giant archive of files on my computer--it's called a filesystem. Anyone ever go to a library and check out their periodical archives? You don't have to wait untel every copy of a given newspaper is destroyed to use it.

  • Yeah, except... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seehund ( 86897 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @12:59PM (#11494235) Homepage Journal
    The article author hypothesises around an example where he owns a copy of a C-64 game, and whether or not it's legal to run said copy under emulation. He thinks this is illegal, due to the following US (I presume) legislation:

    " (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

    The bold text is his emphasis.

    He seems to have missed provision (1) entirely!
    If you live under DMCA rule, just claim your C-64, your Datassette, or your 1541 floppydisk drive are broken...

    • Re:Yeah, except... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Read the comments. He says that provision refers to loading a copy into RAM, like loading a program into RAM on a Windows computer. In short, two copies can be made from the original: one in RAM (from original to run program on computer) and one archive (replacement in case of failure), neither made from the other.

      • Re:Yeah, except... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by barawn ( 25691 )
        Read the comments. He says that provision refers to loading a copy into RAM, like loading a program into RAM on a Windows computer. In short, two copies can be made from the original: one in RAM (from original to run program on computer) and one archive (replacement in case of failure), neither made from the other.

        He didn't look too closely, then.

        It never says that you're restricted to using the program on one machine. Since copying the game in a ROM is a prerequisite to playing the game in an emulator,

        • It never says that you're restricted to using the program on one machine. Since copying the game in a ROM is a prerequisite to playing the game in an emulator, it falls under provision 1. It's exactly akin to making a copy in RAM, because it's required to make a copy to use it on the computer.

          Aw, you beat me to it! That's exactly what I was going to say.

          Now, to use his example, if his PC could read a C64 formatted 5 1/4" floppy disk, then he wouldn't need the D64 file, he could just play the game via the

      • Yes, and read e.g. akawaka's reply to his comment:
        "I can't help but feel that you are attaching your own personal meaning to the first clause to
        satisfy your argument."

        That law regulates "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy".

        If a program is loaded into RAM in order to be executed, it is not the Owner of Copy who is doing this, but the computer (and/or the "copied" software).

        Just look at the USC definition of "copy" [title17.com]:
        "''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which
        • ... whether the hardware is emulated or not.

          Oops. Insert a missing "regardless of" in front of that.

        • Where "fixed" is defined as:
          A work is ''fixed'' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is ''fixed'' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmissio


        • If a program is loaded into RAM in order to be executed, it is not the Owner of Copy who is doing this, but the computer

          That's an insane interpretation. For legal purposes, machines and computers have no willpower, and are instead just tools of people who actually do things. That claim makes almost as much sense as a murderer excusing himself with: "I didn't kill anyone! Only my rifle did, so I didn't break any laws!"

          Seriously, if temporary "internal" processing by a computer or a program in order t
      • And that is where his whole argument falls apart. IANAL, but the first clause is to allow you to take measures to ensure that you can use your legally licensed software when you can't use the original. For example this clause allows you to copy the program from 5.25 inch diskettes to 3.5 inch disks so you can run the program on a machine without a 5.25 Inch disk drive.

        His interpretation, brings into question the legality of installing software on a hard drive. He seems to be of the opinion that the phys

    • "Just claim your C-64, your Datassette, or your 1541 floppydisk drive are broken..."

      Probably not in the case of the C-64 itself.

      Provision (1) says that the software must be used in conjunction with a machine. If the computer was broken then perhaps you could use backed up bios, etc. but the machine that uses the archived software is the C-64 itself.

    • Re:Yeah, except... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ikkonoishi ( 674762 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @08:39PM (#11499467) Journal
      He also neglects.

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ [copyright.gov]


      On October 28, 2003, the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The four classes of works exempted are:

      (1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.

      (2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.


      (3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

      (4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
      • But that is about copy protection schemes, not about making copies. Basic copyright law determines how you can make copies, and the DMCA expands on that to make it a crime to circumvent measures meant to protect copyright. The above clarification relaxes the prohibition on circumventing copy-protection measures but it says nothing about basic copyright law, which is at the heart of the story author's premise.

  • He missed the first part (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spectral ( 158121 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:00PM (#11494253)
    (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.     (emphasis from the article)

    Ok, so why can't it be under section 1? Making the copy of the game is essential since I no longer own a Commodore 64, NES, SNES or whatever, even though the games are all sitting on the shelf behind me.
  • so what about vm ware and also the new breed of IBM-Apple chips for blade servers?

  • It's allowed... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dutt ( 738848 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:03PM (#11494290) Homepage
    It's allowed to emulate games under Swedish law and therefore I'll continue to do it until I'm proven wrong.

    Remember there isn't any world law, therefore only the country you reside in makes the rules for you. No one else.

  • same for dvd/vhs/[name it media] (Score:4, Insightful)

    by orion41us ( 707362 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:04PM (#11494308)
    You do not own the movie/music/game you buy. You pay for the right to use. Essentially a limited non-transferable (is some cases) license. Which are most cases is specific to individual package.... i.e. if I own the star wars dvd's that does not give me the right to download the xvid versions.

    It's bs, but that's how you can get the best-bang-for the buck if your a media company.
    • You do not own the movie/music/game you buy. You pay for the right to use. Essentially a limited non-transferable (is some cases) license. Which are most cases is specific to individual package.... i.e. if I own the star wars dvd's that does not give me the right to download the xvid versions.

      Except that the only right that a copyright holder has is the right of first sale, and no others. That is, once they give that copy to you, they can't prevent you from doing whatever you want with it - other than mak
      • I seriously doubt any court would bother if you downloaded it instead of converting it yourself.

        This was the heart of the mp3.com case. Mp3.com had encoded thousands of CDs and if you proved you owned it by putting the CD in your CDROM, you could then download the MP3 version of it.

        Mp3.com lost, because they used really silly defenses that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Unfortunatly their bumbling does somewhat set a precedent.
        • Mp3.com lost, because they used really silly defenses that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

          Yah, but that sets a precedent for a ROM site, not for people that download them. The point was that if someone tries to sue you for downloading ROMs of games that you own, I think most courts would laugh and toss the case.

          Now, sueing the website that holds them is different.
          • A defense against civil suit for ROM sites is that it would be hard to prove that you were damaging them in any monetary way. At least that's true of things like C64 or NES images.

            Yeah, they own the copyrights, but without damages they don't have much to stand on in court. I think this would be the same way that you could defend against a suit for downloading ROMs too.

            Your argument about the downloaders applies equally well to people that merely download mp3s too. Haven't all the cases thus far been ag
      • Except that the only right that a copyright holder has is the right of first sale, and no others. That is, once they give that copy to you, they can't prevent you from doing whatever you want with it - other than making a copy.

        Not only are you wrong, you contradict yourself. Go read 17 USC 106 for the core rights of copyright holders. Remember that they're negative -- they are rights to exclude others, not rights to actually do.

        The additional provisions for computer programs were added because the objec
        • Not only are you wrong, you contradict yourself. Go read 17 USC 106 for the core rights of copyright holders. Remember that they're negative -- they are rights to exclude others, not rights to actually do.

          All of the provisions in that section apply to making copies, not to other uses of it. Specifically, they say that you can make a copy if it's required to use it (which, if you want to play a game on a computer, it is) and for archival purposes if the archives are destroyed when the program is lost.

          Noth
    • Since when?

      Copyright law makes no such claims. When you buy something copyrighted, you own that copy of it. You may not make further copies of it, except as provided for in the laws, but other than that, there's no restriction on how you use it.

      There is no "license". It's sold under "All rights reserved".

      The first sale doctrine says you can do whatever the hell you want with your copy, including selling it to someone else. No company can take that away from you, except in some cases with software und

    • Re:same for dvd/vhs/[name it media] (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:39PM (#11494741) Homepage
      You're right. That is bullshit.

      When you buy, for example, the Star Wars movies on DVD, you own the copy, i.e. the DVDs. No one owns the creative works; they're unownable. Lucasfilm (or someone) owns the copyright that pertains to the works.

      Barring some actual contract (which doesn't appear to exist with regards to these movies) you own the copy absolutely as personal property.

      This is inclusive of a right to use, but it is equally as unlimited and transferable a right as your right to use any piece of personal property.

      The law may limit your use of it, but that doesn't diminish your ownership or alter the nature of the transaction by which you bought it. The law says I can't drive 100mph in a school zone, but I own my car. The law says I can't murder people with my kitchen knives, but I am the only person in the world with a property interest in them.

      The law does say that you can't download the Star Wars movies, but that has nothing to do with your owning copies of them. Once the copyright expires on them, the law will not care any longer. Likewise, it will not care any longer as to what you do with the copies you bought.

      If you were right -- you're not -- then it would continue to care, since you didn't magically get more rights.

      I swear, I cannot figure out why the hell so many apparently intelligent people manage to overcomplicate and fuck up the very simple idea that when you buy stuff you own it.

      I blame whatever asshole came up with EULAs. They're amazingly rare and totally at odds with how things operate by default. They're of dubious enforcibility and appear to have no real merit given copyright law as it stands. We really ought to ban them with only minor exceptions.
      • > The law does say that you can't download the Star Wars movies, but that has
        > nothing to do with your owning copies of them.

        Note that nobody has EVER been prosecuted for downloading content (kiddie porn not withstanding). It is ONLY the offering for download or otherwise distributing content that people have been prosecuted for.

        In fact, the way I have read the law, and seen it described, is that once you have a copy, you have it. Regardless of how you aquired it (legal copy, bootleg, download etc..
        • Note that nobody has EVER been prosecuted for downloading content

          So? That doesn't mean that no one can be. Many suits have established that people who download copyrighted works without authorization are infringers. It is not subject to doubt at this point. Napster was taken down largely because downloading was found illegal. It's not alone.

          And n.b. that criminal copyright prosecutions are comparatively rare. Civil suits (which are simply brought, not prosecuted) are quite common, however.

          once you ha
        • Note that nobody has EVER been prosecuted for downloading content (kiddie porn not withstanding). It is ONLY the offering for download or otherwise distributing content that people have been prosecuted for.

          That's because, regardless of what the RIAA/MPAA would have you believe, the idea of a "copyright" was not intended to force you to pay for your entertainment. The idea of a "copyright" was meant to control *distribution*.

          In other words, it was a move to keep publishers from reprinting and *selling* th

      • The law does say that you can't download the Star Wars movies

        does it say you can't download? I thought it said you couldn't upload.....

        • does it say you can't download? I thought it said you couldn't upload.....

          The law doesn't use the word "upload" or "download" (those would be excessively specific). What it does say is that you can't "copy" or "distribute".

          Uploading is a form of distributing, and both downloading and uploading are a form of copying. Therefore, without permission, they're both illegal, uploading doubly so.

  • By that logic... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:06PM (#11494336)
    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful

    Try this analogy : If all newspaper and printed documents were under this same law, you would not be allowed to use any back up copy unless all original copies were destroyed. By that logic, we should be passing the original copy of the Declaration of Independence since we would not be allowed to use any copy of it as long as the original existed. Not very logical is it?

    • That analogy doesn't work:

      1) The Declaration of Independence is not copyrighted.
      2) The Declaration of Independence is a government document.
      3) The copyright on the Declaration of Independence would be expired by now.
      • That analogy doesn't work:

        Nope. Fact #2 is flat-out wrong: The Declaration of Ind was not written by any government- it was published by a group of rebel guerrilas.

        Facts #1 and #3 are true but inappropriate, because if today's copyright law had existed back then, the Declaration would've been implicitly copyrighted, and it would've never expired (since the USA doesn't allow copyright to expire anymore)

  • Emulation is wrong. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Meagermanx ( 768421 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:11PM (#11494371)
    Emulation is wrong. It hurts the industry. I mean, if everyone is downloading Skate or Die! for the Commodore 64, how will the developers make any money??
  • ...that means the owner of an original may make a a copy and that copy cannot be used unless the original is destroyed or damaged.

    So I can dump my carts to disk then have a big ole bonfire with them and play the copies legally. Or just throw them in the trash.

  • No blood no foul... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by briankoenig ( 853681 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:11PM (#11494379)
    My personal belief is that if the respective game creator no longer makes money from my purchase of the game, I have no problem using an emulated version. Case in point: Let's say I want to play EVO, one of the only Super Nintendo RPG's I didn't buy when the system was new. Where do I get it? I can buy it used at Gamestop or GameCrazy, but Nintendo nor the publisher profits from that, just the huge corporate game company. I could buy it on eBay, but again, neither the developer nor publisher profits off of that, just the private seller and eBay. In cases such as this, it has no effect on the platform owner, the developer, or the publisher whether I download the emulated version or buy the copy used from someone else.
    • What if the publisher plans to eventually re-release emulated versions of its older games for a newer system?

      This is exactly what they did with their old NES games for Gameboy.

      If there's enough demand for something "old" like EVO that a re-release is potentially marketable, then downloading without paying for it in some form may be regarded by some as questionable.

      However, it can be difficult to find out if a re-release is in the works to begin with....
      • But what if they never WILL re-release it. It doesnt hurt the industry and it never will, collectors will still buy cartridges.
      • How exactly should game companies find out if there is interest in re-realeasing old games? Nintendo only re-released old nes games that sold well, and added some generic space shooters and side scrollers into the mix to make a larger collection of 'nintendo minis'.

        The best example of a fan community lobbying to get an old game released was the Starmen.net effort. Starmen.net (used to be earthbound.net) collected a huge number of sigs to get Nintendo to realize that there was a very real interest in se
    • EVO is a great game, but you have to ask yourself, is it an RPG, platformer, action adventure, or what? Maybe all of the above? I wish that game had a proper modern version made of it.

  • Several others have pointed out that all you have to do is claim that your original system broke down and you're in the clear, but I'm going to take it to the next level.

    Emulator writers are also in no danger because the emulators themselves have a huge number of legitimate uses. The law already covered this issue many, many times with the Xerox ruling about photocopiers and the Betamax ruling about time-shifting.

    Furhtermore the bit about emulators "[making] use of a copyrighted BIOS or kernal(sic)" sma

  • Its attempts to emulate a complete, stable OS have not reached fruition yet. Nothing to worry about for now.

  • Not Exactly (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When you purchase a dvd, you don't purchase a license. You purchase and own THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the movie in THAT PARTICULAR FORMAT. Unfortunately, you don't also purchase the right to create a copy from your own copy (except for archival purposes). That right is reserved for the copyright holder.
  • Surely an archive copy is legally usable if the original is beyond repair - otherwise what's the point of having it (as the law allows you to do)?

    This would mean you can legally use emulation if you own the orginal rom (floppy/CD/etc.) and it's broken beyond reasonable repair.
  • What if the rom is a reverse engineer? Ive seen copies of Mario World for the ti89 that dont look to be complete rips of the original rom from the GameBoy cart. It looks like some geek sitting in the back of his CS class decided to recode the damn thing in assembly. I could be wrong about the geek, the class, and the language, but its definately a recode and not a straight copy. How would the law interpret this?

  • Even IBM does/did emulation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dragonmaster Lou ( 34532 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @01:45PM (#11494833) Homepage
    Back in the early days of the computer market (the 50's, in this case), IBM had some serious problems. Basically, they would come out with new mainframe models every couple years or so -- but the architecture was so radically different from the previous generation that it couldn't run the previous generation's software (this was before they got the whole "backwards compatibility" concept). Recompiling also wasn't much of an option because most of the software written back then was done in assembly -- and even in the few cases where it was written in Fortran or something, the hardware, OSes (as primitive as they were back then), etc., were so radically different that a simple recompile wouldn't do either.

    Their solution? Emulation. When you bought a new IBM mainframe, you could also acquire an emulator for the previous generation's equipment so you can continue to run your old stuff. Given as how storage technologies, etc., were also changing as fast as the CPU architectures, you would also essentially be running the emulated software off of the equivilent of "ROM archives."

    There wasn't a problem with this back then, and I don't see why there should be a problem with this now.
  • I mean, last I checked the process of reverse-engineering closed systems was illegal, therefore creating an emulator of a video game system is by definition illegal. I mean, I understand the article (which is focused on the games rather than the consoles themselves), but isn't it also illegal to have created the emulator in the first place?

    The only exception to this would be in a situation where the rights holder to the hardware/firmware releases said specifications and code into the public domain... to th
    • I mean, last I checked the process of reverse-engineering closed systems was illegal

      Does it hurt when you're so totally amazingly and in all ways completely wrong?

    • but isn't it also illegal to have created the emulator in the first place? There is no law prohibiting you from programming something--so long as it doesn't do something harmful to someone else's computer. (as far as I know) I mean, I can code viruses all day and night, but as long as I don't begin sending them, its not illegal.
  • Ive owned a crap load of Amstrad CPC, SNES, and PS1 games but 99% of them were broke/dumped/lost.
    DO I have the right to get the ROM? I did own the games afterall.

  • No it isn't; this guy is screwing up his analysis. (Score:3, Informative)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @02:23PM (#11495267) Homepage
    It all has to do with Title 17, Chapter 1, 117...

    Warning sign one: No one gives a rat's ass about chapters in title 17. Sometimes people do (e.g. Chapter 11 bankruptcy) but not here. Likewise, people usually don't say 'title' unless they mean the entire thing (e.g. federal copyright law is chiefly codified in title 17).

    The cite anyone familiar with copyright law would provide would be 17 U.S.C. 117. Getting basic stuff like this wrong is a bad sign.

    Moving on, he has skipped -- though he took the trouble to quote -- an important clause in the section.

    Taking this into account, we can say that:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.

    So the checklist is pretty simple:
    * Do you own a copy of the program? (EULAs may interfere with this, which is one of the reasons they're really intolerable) N.b. that some people misread owning a copy as owning a copyright. But that would be asinine as a copyright holder cannot infringe on his own copyright at all. It's as impossible as stealing something from yourself.

    * Is the computer program being utilized in conjunction with a machine? Yes, if we're going to run it in an emulator.

    * Are any reproductions or adaptations of the program you make only made as an essential step in running it in the emulator? Yes. Essential here doesn't really mean that there is no alternative, but rather that it's not utterly superfluous. I.e. merely because you might be able to run a program without reproducing it to the hard drive, but rather reproducing from CD straight to RAM, you aren't obligated to.

    So what's the upshot for emulator writers? Well, I would worry about contributory copyright infringement, the type of legal challenge that all the Peer-to-Peer applications have had to deal with

    I would generally not worry about that. To escape contributory infringement on the basis of a capability of a technology, one need only demonstrate potential, significant, noninfringing uses. Since there are plenty of programs that can be run in emulation which are authorized to be so run, in the public domain, or run by copyright holders themselves, that's likely sufficient. And even that presupposes that the guy is right, and he's not.

    The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.

    This is roughly correct. First, note that Nintendo's statement applies to the backup provision of 117 -- 117(a)(2). We've been looking at 117(a)(1), which concerns itself with running software, not backing it up.

    Second, I would disagree that backups lawfully made pursuant to 117(a)(2) can only be used when the original cannot be used.

    The exclusive rights of the copyright holder are in 106. The relevant one is reproduction (i.e. making a new copy, given the special definition of 'copy' in 101). Use -- as distinguished from reproduction -- is not covered, and therefore not infringing. A caveat, however, in that a use that involves a reproduction is infringing on the basis of the reproduction; this is why we need 117, since moving things into hard drives or RAM is reproduction.

    The statute allows archival copies to be made if they are only for archival purposes, but this only makes sense if they can at some point be acti

    • Thanks for the info. Also, might be worth it to mention that not all emulation requires a backup copy. For example my PC reads Playstation disks fine, so I never need to use a backup to run the game on an emulator. This completely removes the code he mentions from any consideration in the legality of all emulation.
      • But since you have to create a new copy in RAM in order to play it, you are in fact relying on 17 USC 117(a)(1). So it's certainly a section worth discussion.
        • I don't think most Playstation emulators cache the entire disc to RAM. This would be pretty unnecessary (and probably require something like 1+ GB of RAM), especially since most of the content on the discs that takes up any real amount of space is the audio and video stuff, which is usually streaming as the game plays.
          • Doesn't have to be the entire thing, and it doesn't have to be there any longer than it takes to merely reproduce it further or let people directly or indirectly perceive it.

            The leading case on reproducing to RAM being potentially infringing is MAI v. Peak. You might want to google for it and give it a read. It's kind of bizarre, but it is widely followed.
            • Um, and Playstations copy it to RAM also. No computer use CD-ROMs as program memory. It would be incredibly slow, for one thing. (Not to mention it's impossible on all CPUs ever made, there's no CPU instruction that says 'retrieve this location from CD and pull it into the CPU and execute it'. You have to copy it into memory.) And even then you'd be copying it through the processor as you executed each instruction.

              If Playstations are legal to operate, than emulators are, in that regard.

              And he already ment

              • Um, and Playstations copy it to RAM also.

                I know. It's one of those glaring problems with copyright law these days. Playing a Playstation game in a Playstation is infringing too unless one of several things apply: The game is in the public domain; permission is given (expressly or implicitly) to do so; 117 applies, or; 107 applies.

                As a rule you can expect that the latter three apply for playing a console game on the console it's made for.

                The permission angle is a little tougher with emulators, but we st
                • MAI v. Peak was a licensing issue. Section 117 of copyright laws says the owner of the copy has a right to make any copies they need to run it, and Peak was not the owner, but merely a contractor hired by the licensee. The license said that licensee was allowed to run the program only for data processing needs.

                  I've never seen a console game that even pretends to be licensed. (And EULAs are pretend licenses that won't hold up in court.)

                  And the other didn't involve a computer program, so no exception.

                  • Section 117 of copyright laws says the owner of the copy has a right to make any copies they need to run it, and Peak was not the owner, but merely a contractor hired by the licensee.

                    Yes, and? MAI stands for the proposition that reproductions to RAM are infringing unless one of the previously mentioned factors applies.

                    You're saying that MAI's licensee had a factor going for it (it was authorized) but that Peak didn't (it wasn't authorized, 117 didn't shield it, 107 either didn't shield it or wasn't alle
                    • No, I'm saying MAI doesn't matter because 117 gives the owner of the copy the right to copy it around in memory, and the company that hired Peak did not purchase a copy, they merely licensed it. (They actually did license it, too, it wasn't some backdoor EULA.)

                      Copying into RAM is an infringement unless 117 applies, and 117 only applies to the owner of a copy. If you are the owner of the copy, you don't need permission. (BTW, there's a law being considered to fix this, changing 'owner' to 'lawful possessor'

  • So, Sense is ruled out, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VernonNemitz ( 581327 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:19PM (#11495850) Journal
    According to the guy's logic, then this should be illegal too:
    Buy an original copy.
    Make a copy.
    Archive the original
    Use the copy until it wears out.
    Make another copy from the archived original.
    Use that until it wears out.
    Etc.

    After all, it is pretty well known that the average person cannot make a copy that is as high-quality as the original. (CD-rot seldom happens to originals, just to CDRs, see?). So, if I use the original, and it suffers wear and tear, then how can I be sure that my archived copy is really going to save my bacon when needed? While archiving the original practically guarantees it!

    Anyway, if the preceding is illegal, then we need a new law!!!
  • what about wine then?
    Ah, i forgot, wine is not an emulator :)

  • Further doesn't that mean that the only legal way for the owner of an Atari Asteroids stand-up machine to play the game in an emulator is to obtain a license for the ROM for that purpose (which, incidentally, StarROMs does).

    I guess that could depend on whether the games you are playing on an emulator were licensed or sold to you. If you licensed the originals only for playing on the original machines, then you would need a separate license for running them on an emulator. If you bought the originals

  • but he seems to be mistaken:

    (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) th

  • The copyright holder for the Vectrex arcade game hardware and the various games which were released on cartridges has explicitly allowed its user community to create emulators for that hardware and run copied images of that software as long as the emulation is not done for profit.

    Because of this, Vectrex emulators are perfectly legal, and it is legal to copy the ROM images and play them in a Vectrex emulator on a PC.
  • This is pretty much the news-article equivalent of a troll, right?

    Okay. Real content. We all know when we break the law. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to break the law. It's not like these anti-copying notices and end user license agreements (EULAs) are written in some foreign language. They're written in English, and distributed with each copy of the game, and even the system. If you want to copy a game, you know whether it's legal. "Desired by the manufacturer" and "Legal" are NOT THE SAME. I
  • Well, the curmudegon article does a bang up job introducing you to the legal theory of 2000. Fortunately, nothings changed. But he fails to make ANY argument as to how ALL emulation is Illegal. To do so would require a proof that Nintendo's own emu's offered to developers were themselves illegal (they arent) or a less pedantic argument that emulators themselves are illegal without the permission of the important parties (generally the court cases have shown this to not be true). I think the author would hav
  • While I always prefer the real thing to emulation, we emulation of any game console that I have come across tends to be inaccurate, incomplete, and buggy compared to the real thing... emulation is in no way illegal or wrong. If there was something wrong with it, you can bet Nintendo would have sued more emulator authors, and Sony would have won all of their anti-emulator suits.

    If emulation was illegal, then your "IBM compatible" PC would also be illegal. Dell, Compaq, etc... would all never have existed
  • Sorry, but for example I play all my Playstation games in an emulator, right off the original CDs. There is _no_ ROM image involved, and there is _no_ copying the data off the CD involved.

    Furthermore, just for the sake of beating on the obvious fallacy some more: even for SNES or GBA games, it would be trivial to make a connector (or a gamepad with a connector) so you can run games directly off the original cartridge. Just plug it in, and run the game off it. No copying or ROMs involved. Dunno if it's been
  • I think this guy likes the sound of his own voice and that he doesn't know much relevent history (and that he hasn't been bothered to use Google either).

    As I get a bit sick of explaning to muppets like him who are arrogant enough to think they have uncovered some crucial legal precident or frame work that no-one else has noticed (including teams of lawyers working for firms like Sony), the issue of emulation has been delt with in court in the US many times, even specifically in the area of emulating video

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close