FBI Cracks Down on Piracy of Obsolete Game 191
Alien54 wrote to mention a story detailing an FBI crackdown on pirated...NES games. From the article: "More than 60,000 pirated copies of Nintendo game consoles were seized Wednesday during raids in New York and New Jersey, prosecutors announced. Four people were arrested in the crackdown on the theft of popular games such as "Donkey Kong," "Mario Brothers," "Duck Hunt," "Baseball" and others, according to a release by federal authorities and papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Nintendo told the FBI that individuals and companies copy the video games and sell the pirated versions throughout the world, costing the company millions of dollars in lost revenue annually, according to the complaint."
Do nentendo still sell the games? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do nentendo still sell the games? (Score:2, Funny)
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:1, Redundant)
You are able to go buy a GBA and Super Mario Bros from Nintendo.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I always thought that Nintendo and other old game companies should just make an emulator, and give it away for free. Then sell ROM downloads for like 50 cents each. They would make a killing and their claims against pirates like these would actually have some more meaning. This is yet anothe reason we need IP reform. If you aren't currently making money from that IP you shouldn't be able to claim damages if someone else does. That will provide the most benefit to society by legally providing a supply of goods which are in demand. As it stands there is a demand for goods that IP holders refuse to produce, that is not good for people.
Re:Really? (Score:1)
That means they could drum up, oh, four or five dollars in revenue from each typical customer. In 5-15 separate transactions.
That's a heck of an interesting business model.
Re:Really? (Score:1)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps after a certain time frame there could be a very low cost compulury license so that the creators dont get a say it what happens after a certain point but still get money. There is alot that cou
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? Copyright exists to protect the rights of the individual. Just because you state something does not make it true or even a valid argument.
A person is a "dick" for retaining their property? There's an interesting thought. Seems like Lenin would be right behind you on that one. Honestly, Nintendo doesn't want their Mario prop
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
False:
The US Constitution specifically states that copyrights are to promote progress; it does not mention any protecting any rights of individuals. In fact, it is explaining why it is allowing congress to take away rights that individuals would otherwise have over their own physical property just because it happens to have information fixed on it that came from somewhere else.Any rights that copyright gives to the creator at the expense of others is a windfall side-effect for the creator. The primary goal as stated in the clause is basically economic stimulus. These rights are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Just because you state something does not make it true or even a valid argument.
True, as you've just demonstrated.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges [of copyright] that Congress has authorized, while 'intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward,' are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)
The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, `lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.'
and I really like this item...
H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909)
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. . .
In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
All putting copyright on a proper legal footing and thoroughly smashing the flawed 'natural property' model.
-
Sonny Bono owns you (Score:2)
I just wanted to help out with a couple of Supreme Court rulings on the subject:
And then the Supreme Court went ahead and reversed itself in Eldred v. Ashcroft, claiming that it's Congress
Re:Sonny Bono owns you (Score:2)
Eldred merely says that *bad judgement* by congress is not unconstitutional. Congress can be *stupid* in crafting copyright law reasonably intended to serve the public, but they still cannot pass a law for the purpose of serving copyright holders.
Now in my oppinion I'd say congress crossed that line.... but I have a bad habit of unde
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Copyright should lapse if the product is not available at a reasonable price for 5 years or so.
That's just stupid. Businesses can't afford to keep rereleasing the same stuff if there's no longer a great demand for it. At the very least, warehousing is expensive.
Look at Disney's home video scheme. Every 10 years, they pull something out of "the vault" and sell it for awhile. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to do this? The law should force them to continually make and stock copies of everythin
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Sitting on a
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Thing is... they *are* available to buy [classicnesseries.com]. So your argument is null.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Weird.... (Score:2)
Are you saying that if I buy a copy of a book and someone makes cheaper copies of the book, then I should be compensated?
That's weird man. Weird.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
When that happens I will no longer insist on my right to backup copies of media I buy and I will no longer download those albums that I have had stolen/lost/wrecked cd, old cartridge that won't work etc.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since everyone else has mentioned the GBA port, I just thought I'd point out that there's another way to get it too, even though it's not in production anymore.
Come to think of it, there's Super Mario Brothers All-Stars for the SNES, and that includes SMB as well.
And if I'm not mistaken, there's a version of it in Animal Crossing for the GameCube.
The point that I wasn't planning on making when I started this post: Nintendo is still making money off of the game, by rereleasing it on occasion. If someone has a pirated copy and doesn't buy a rerelease because of that, Nintendo has lost revenue.
How do they calculate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do they calculate? (Score:3, Insightful)
$50 x Inflated estimate of the number of copies 'pirated'.
Re:How do they calculate? (Score:2)
Oh, crap, I forgot.. (Score:2)
Re:Oh, crap, I forgot.. (Score:2)
Re:How do they calculate? (Score:2)
Oh, but they *are* still selling them [classicnesseries.com].
How ridiculous. (Score:3, Funny)
Millions of HAWK shop $$ (Score:1)
Re:Millions of HAWK shop $$ (Score:1)
Re:Millions of HAWK shop $$ (Score:2)
Damit... has none of you ever heard of the Classic NES Series [classicnesseries.com]?
They *are* selling those games at this very instant, so *yes*, they are losing revenue from those pirated copies.
Crappy consoles. (Score:5, Interesting)
The games are all there, but often the titles or copyright notices are removed, or the graphics are askew, the little built-in light gun doesn't work, or the sound is off for some reason. The controllers are badly designed, such that you don't know which button is Start, which is Jump, and what the deal is with the turbo buttons.
I do think Nintendo is missing the opportunity to sell consoles like this themselves. But it seems they'd rather sell us old NES games for $20 each on the Game Boy Advance.
Re:Crappy consoles. (Score:2)
I cleaned you, I washed you, I bloodied my fingers rubbing erasers across your contact points. (...No No No...) And this is the way you repay me!? (...No No No...) WORK DAMN YOU WORK!
No. No. No.
(sob)
Re:Crappy consoles. (Score:3, Interesting)
Pirated...consoles? (Score:2)
Re:Pirated...consoles? (Score:4, Interesting)
The tragedy of copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:1)
Or does your mechanism for forcing the publishers to keep everything in print also prescribe a price they need to sell it at?
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:2)
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Orphaned works (Score:2)
Worse yet is the fact that there's no registration of copyright works, so if you find some old game that you think is great and would like to distribute it you have no idea who you have to contact to get permission.
For one thing, there is a copyright registry located in the United States. For another thing, if you move your business to Canada, you can apparently license some copyrighted works directly from the government under its compulsory license scheme for orphaned works.
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:1)
Funny how I don't remember that. Perhaps that was part of the boilereplate rhetoric expounded when the copyright act was passed.
Everything that is ever created is copyrighted. Should Federal Marshalls axe down the bedroom doors of nine year old girls because they refuse to freely publish their diaries? I'm certain there is a 'market value' for their writings, and an audience of interested readers.
Why is it any differe
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:2)
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:2)
If you had to pay a yearly fee to maintain your copyright this kind of crap wouldn't happen.
I'm sure it would, unless you could somehow make the yearly fee a variable amount.
Hmm, maybe the yearly fee could be based on the declared value of the work. So if Nintendo wants to claim that pirated versions of Duck Hunt cost them a million dollars a year in revenues, then they've got to put up say 0.1%, or $1,000/year to keep it copyrighted.
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:2)
What do you mean '5 years', have a look http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050412 2 25604578 [groklaw.net]
The short course is that (at least in music) while the copyright for the creator, (songwriter, musician, etc.) may expire, the publisher continues to have 'common law copyright' on anything produced pre 1972. With the extension of copyright currently to between 75 and 95 years, it's going to be 2067 before anything music wise goes into the public domain, by
Re:The tragedy of copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Not obsolete... (Score:5, Interesting)
And also, these are the crappy 1000-in-1 games-in-a-controller things for sale at malls. The problem isn't so much that they cause Nintendo to lose money, but instead diminish Nintendo's brand.
See, many of the games in these systems are literally hacked ROMs with various sprites replaced, and often the ROMs don't work and simply crash. Since the consumer thinks "this Nintendo sucks", they are less likely to buy a Nintendo product down the line, thinking it'll be similarly crappy.
Not to mention that the consumer got ripped off in the first place, as these systems tend to be sold for US$60 or so in mall kiosks and are of absolutely piss poor quality which would likely break under moderate use.
Re:Not obsolete... (Score:3, Informative)
Right. I used to be in the abandonware-should-be-public-domain camp until I saw Nintendo rerelease old games, e.g., the SNES Zelda for Game Boy Advance, and many NES games for the E-Reader. Granted, we can talk about the incentive for innovation of a long copyright period, but these works are firmly within their copyright (they're only about 15 years old) and Nintendo has shown that they're definitely not abandoned.
If anything, we should shorten co
Re:Not obsolete... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think NOA is completely in the right here... In fact, I've called NOA before to report such items for sale, and ended up in a conversation with one of the employees about how copying old games for personal use is not that bad, but this sort of thing just isn't right.
Re:Not obsolete... (Score:2)
Everyone please copy/paste this thread for further use, so we don't have to endure all the other flag-wavers and rom-hackers crying out for attention.
With all the mighty powers, (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try, people, but there're things you're *not* telling us and cases you're *not* showing us that keep some of us fearful - not respectful, given the above, but fearful.
Controlling the media to portray you, our beloved federales, as incompetent clowns is only halfway effective - which half varies depending, and I'm afraid of clowns.
Arrrr !! (Score:5, Funny)
Arrrr! They be only 9 pixels wide, and be made of 3 colors, but arrr, these NES buccaneers have me shaking in me sea-boots!
That's 8*8px and 4 colors (Score:2, Informative)
I wrote a program that extracts the tile tables from NES roms and thus had to do a bit of reverse engeneering. It seems the tiles are 8*8px and 2 bitplans, which means 4 colors. One of the colors is transparent though, so 3 is sort of correct. A tile only requires 16 bytes of memory (8*8 bits * 2 bitplans).
The tiles are arranged in 16*16 blocks or banks, and two of t
Re:With all the mighty powers, (Score:2)
big company: "FBI guy, Asia doesn't give two shits about our copyright laws. do something about it!"
FBI: "alright, since we can't fly over there and catch people pirating your software, we'll catch the people here pirating their software. Then maybe they'll be obliged to do the same"
Remarkably Sparse Article (Score:1)
Do they really mean 60,000 consoles or is it 60,000 cartridges as the article implies earlier?
Also, I really wanna know if these guys were "pirating" NES games or if "Donkey Kong" and "Mario" were the only nintendo properties that the article writer knew. Herm.
Re:Remarkably Sparse Article (Score:2)
A few points in Nintendos favor (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Many 8-bit games have new incarnations, and as far as I know, its a good idea to control the IP in all its incarnations if you dont wish to lose that control.
3) This is about as blatant a case of piracy as one can name. It was both wholesale and flagrant. And Nintendo went after the source, not the customer.
This is not anything like the RIAA / MPAA suing individual users.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:A few points in Nintendos favor (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. I would also add that Nintendo will definitely want to continue to own the copyright to these titles. If clones or rips are made and sold without permission, Nintendo's basically giving them the green light to keep going. They can't just wait until a big one comes along that uses one of their franchises that are still active.
All-in-one consoles? (Score:2)
Re:All-in-one consoles? (Score:2)
Nintendo did an open call to consumers last Christmas season to NOT buy these unofficial products. This was a HUGE hint to the pirates that they would be targeted. At that time, though, the FBI was more interested in pirated software on the XBox.
Uhhh... The FBI? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh... The FBI? (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... The FBI? (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... The FBI? (Score:3, Informative)
Still, it is stupid that it is, and I do support making it exclusively civil.
Re: Sig (Score:2)
In that case, can I have the retainer back??
Official theft vs copyright infringement thread (Score:4, Informative)
Four people were arrested in the crackdown on the theft of popular games
How many times does it have to be explained that copyright infringement is a different offence to theft?
If somebody put a game up on the Internet where it was downloaded thousands of times, that can cause far more harm than if somebody went into a shop and stole something.
If somebody copied games that you can no longer buy, it can cause less harm than if somebody went into a shop and stole something.
Copyright infringement and theft are fundamentally different actions, with different consequences, governed by different laws. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (Dowling vs US, 1985).
There is a perfectly good term to use when somebody copies something illegally. It's "copyright infringement". People who insist upon misusing the term "theft" are only seeking to cause yet more pointless arguments. There is a word for these people too. It's "troll".
Re:Official theft vs copyright infringement thread (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know - how many times will it take until the people who claim that "it's not theft" learn English?
Not all theft is illegal or even wrong. "Mediocre artists borrow, great artists steal," as some great artist once wrote. Shakespeare stole the plot for Romeo and Juliet from some Italian writer. Block and Adler stole the plot of Forbidden Planet from Shakespeare. None of them did anything wrong
Re:Official theft vs copyright infringement thread (Score:2)
Are you still abusing your life-partner?
Re:Official theft vs copyright infringement thread (Score:3, Informative)
In case anyone's interested here are the relevant paragraphs, Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985):
the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and care
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about this... (Score:1)
If Nintendo judges it can still make money off these games in a few years, then it is in their own right to arrest people who steal from them.
If Nintendo were doing the arresting, this wouldn't be nearly as bad. But instead they've got the FBI doing it for them.
If stories like this aren't a good reason for having highly progressive taxation, I don't know what is.
Re:How about this... (Score:1)
Re:How about this... (Score:2)
Re:How about this... (Score:2)
Re:How about this... (Score:2)
I don't bother with emulators and what not, but would anybody be hurt if I played Robotron or Berzerk for nostalgia?
Hold the fucking phone... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in november, when Nintendo asked for your help in tracking down these "N64 controllers" full of hacked roms [slashdot.org], everyone thought it was great, lined up at their e-door to help
Now when they've finally raided the warehouse and put a stop to it, there's nothing but "bitch bitch bitch copyright is teh suck".
Fuck you guys, I'm going home.
These guys wouldn't know theft if... (Score:1, Insightful)
These guys seem like they wouldn't know theft if it bit them in the rear end. The crime is copyright infringement, not theft. Why are the police not involved if it is theft? Why is the IP "stolen" still in Nintendo's posession? Because what is going on is a violation of copyright laws/co
Re:These guys wouldn't know theft if... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is nearly the same as say:
If a drunk kills someone with a car, the family of that person sues the drunk driver not only for the wrongful death o
I'm Not Sure I Get This One (Score:2)
The handheld console games from a while back were selling because they were easy to use and on the cheap.
Why would you bother knocking off NES consoles and games when most people who have the itch just buy GB versions or use emulators?
Wouldn't it make more sense to pirate Gameboy games?
Re:I'm Not Sure I Get This One (Score:2)
Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, Thriller first came out on vinyl. Everything was good. The tape offered portability. Everything was still good. The CD offered portability and sound quality. Still grand. You can buy these games for a song for the original NES, or you can pay 20$ for the portable version that has all the graphics of the original (sometimes improved) and maybe a few extras thrown in here and there. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The issue is this: some, if not most, of these games are not available for sale any more. I can't go to a store and pick up Double Dragon, for any system. I need to hunt hunt hunt for it. Now Nintendo may want to rerelease these games, they may not, but they can't say that they're currently losing millions of dollars in revenue. These guys have been stopped, I guess sales of old NES carts should start bringing in the big bucks for them again.
HOWEVER, that being said... these guys were profiting from counterfeit goods, and I'm sure no one can condone that.
Wtf? It's supposed to be legal... (Score:5, Interesting)
(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.
Sounds like the FBI straight out fucked up to me.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Losing revenue on something you don't sell (Score:2)
This is kind of insane.
They do not sell the games themselves. Nor do they sell the consoles that these games require to run. And they have no online aftermarket auctioning thing which might tie resale of used items into a revenue generating stream
And yet they claim lost revenue?
It obviously can't be enough revenue to motivate them to actually sell the product. If it was, then I would expect them to put Donkey Kong et al on the shelves for consumers to purchase.
This is an interesting loophole on Ameri
Thank fucking god. (Score:2)
Re:Lost Revenue on 20-yr Old Games (Score:1, Redundant)
"Why would I buy newzeldatitle when I still haven't beat ZeldaII?"
Re:Lost Revenue on 20-yr Old Games (Score:3, Funny)
Maybeifyoupracticedusingthespacebaralittlemoreo
Re:Lost Revenue on 20-yr Old Games (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
THEN BEGIN PRODUCTION OF THE OLD GAMES AGAIN.
The most popular games in those pirate multicarts are available as part of Classic NES Series for Game Boy Advance.