Nintendo Confirms It Will Sue UltraHLE Creators 96
Flagrantly Biased Editorial: Once again, Nintendo is inventing intellectual property rights out of thin air. Miss Llewelyn states as axiomatic that emulators A) are illegal, and B) exist solely to permit playing illicit copies of games. This false premise leads them to a variety of flawed conclusions, such as the belief that Nintendo has the right to dictate what buyers can and can't run the games on. Regardless of what shrinkwrap "agreements" may say, it is my adamant position that once a product is released into an uncontrolled retail market, what the purchaser does with that product is entirely their business (within the confines of applicable statutes), and the vendor has no right after the fact to constrain use. Further, running a program under an emulator, despite Nintendo's fervent desires, does not constitute an infringing "derivative work" under copyright law. In fact, translating your personal copy of a copyrighted software program to achieve compatability with another platform is recognized as fair use, as Nintendo well knows. (Redistribution of the translation, however, isn't kosher.)
Nintendo's narrow position also fails to take into consideration that I'm seriously considering buying a copy of Zelda-64 now that I can play it on my PC. If, however, their principles compel them to forego my (meager) contribution to their revenue, I would be happy to oblige.
sure. (Score:1)
HELLO Nintendo??!?!?!?! Wake up you bunch of sad fascists!!!
How do they DARE to appeal to my moral values while they persue nothing but profit on base of some imaginary intellectual property infringement, ruining the lives of a couple of innocent programmers in the process?! While i find the whole concept of intellectual property to be somewhat doubtful, the statement that emulating a computer in itsself is an infringement on this intellectual property is ludicrous! Their behavious is inexcusable, especially since this ultrahle was clearly a hobbyist project!! This is WRONG. I don't care if the law is on their side. If it is, the law is _WRONG_.
And these people should have my respect?
Forget it. They just gained another enemy.
In the years of following the computer and software industry my moral stand on so called software piracy has been shifting slowly but steadily. A couple of years ago it was "its not the right thing to do".
Every time i read a story like this it goes more toward "I don't care if they go broke from illegal copying, they are maffia-like rats anyway. Fsck them. Copy like hell, and lets screw them over the best way we can." I know this doesn't sound civil, nor mature. But if these arrogant software companies are to be considered civil and mature, i'll pass my share in that. I'm infuriated by this ongoing "patent this" and "intellectual property infringement that" bullshit driven by nothing but greed.
ps: i know this is an inflammatory comment. i'm really pissed off by this, but i don't feel like counting to 10 at the moment.
N$ntendo (Score:1)
Backup copies of this software are strictly prohibited. Copies are unnecessary to protect your software.
Comments?
With the source code out it is too late (Score:1)
For nintendo to do anything. Maybe that is why the code was released in the first place- just to make it obvious that Nintendo would accomplish nothing by suing the original creators. Anyway, I will of course continue to pirate nintendo games in order to make a political statement against the lawsuit. It is my duty as a citizen =)
Legality of ROM images (Score:1)
Who says that every clause in a license agreement is valid, legal or enforceable. If M$ decided to add a clause to the EULA that states
"Using this product implies that the user agrees to forfeit all financial and tangible assets in said user's posession to M$."
Would that be valid? Of course not. Neither is the "No backup" clause.
LK
Legality of ROM images (Score:1)
In any case, there is at least one other clear use for the emulator that wouldn't be illegal: N64 software development. I would imagine that it would be usefull even to Nintendo's in house developers (that is, assuming they don't already have their own emulator)
Legality of ROM images (Score:1)
Emulators (Score:1)
------
"Nintendo wins case" -- "Stock dropps rapidly"... (Score:1)
'nuff said.
leader loss (Score:1)
cristiana
Legality of ROM images (Score:1)
Presumably Nintendo have a clause in the license agreement to their software that prohibits making ROM images or reading the ROM on anything other than a Nintendo console (sort of like reverse-engineering clauses). If this is the case, then UltraHLE may have no purpose other than to play illegally copied games or software read in violation of the agreement. As such, with no legal use, UltraHLE would clearly be illegal.
They'll need all the luck they can get stamping it out... it'll no doubt be on the offshore data havens with all the mp3s and Microsoft Office copies.
and? (Score:1)
it's a pity Nintendo do this anyhow.
--
there's ton of emulator... (Score:1)
for "old" computers (i have a ZX81, an Amstrad 6128 both real and emulator) almost every games are free because companies that made it does not exist anymore or agree to give them for free (so it's legal), for "new" systems you can find games in store and buy it, and? gameboy is still alive even in color and there's emulator for dos/win/unix and hundreds of ROM since years!!! and nintendo did nothing against it!
i really hope Nintendo will lost.
--
and? (Score:1)
i prefer a powerful PC! i don't like console, there's no keyboard and prompt!
--
there's ton of emulator... (Score:1)
--
Comparing emulators and guns (Score:1)
I think this is a perfect analogy to show how silly this whole thing is.
--
Voice of another potential Nintendo customer: (Score:1)
I will, however, pay $70 or whatever outrageous amount they're charging for Zelda 64 if I can then grab the ROM off the net and play it on UltraHLE/Wine (or even just on Windows).
Nintendo's just pissed because they crippled their system by using cartridges instead of CD-ROMs, adding $25+ to each game's manufacturing costs and cutting game data size 10-fold, all to prevent game reproduction; and they still can't believe that they failed totally (and were even counter-productive, since the smaller ROMs are more pirate-friendly over the net than Playstation CDs).
Ever heard of 3DO? (Score:1)
...And some of us who helped develop both that machine and the never-released 64-bit follow-on, M2, are still pretty cheesed about it. But that's another flame...
Schwab
Hell yes! (Score:1)
I use an emulator now to play my NES games (legally) too, and I ain't going to apologize for it, either.
It's not as if they have lotsa decent games . . . (Score:1)
DrH
not to be nitpicky... (Score:1)
somehow, I don't think that OSS has been out _that_ long.
They will lose this case if it will go to court (Score:1)
This case will lose in court for sure IF it gets there. IMHO, what Nintendo is trying to do is to scare to death two teens/20+ with their legal machine.
cartridge => PC (Score:1)
FreeSpeech (Score:1)
Nintendo, UltraHLE, (c)'s oh my. (Score:1)
Hmm... personally, I think the authors of UltraHLE
are great coders for creating such an emulator.
However, I think their placing their code on the
web where they knew people who could use it to
run pirated roms DOES put them in a position where
they should be held responsible for the
repercussions of such an action. Just because
they pull it off the web doesn't free them from
responsibilities.
While this doesn't put them in the same boat as
warez users, common sense would suggest that
any one in the emulation scene would know about
pirating. But then again, who knows. One could
be wrong.
Nintendo, I think, is barking up the wrong tree
at the wrong time. Attacking UltraHLE, who has
already made a gesture of good faith in pulling
their code only invites attacks on Nintendo
itself. It shows a flaw in character and will
probably hurt them in the peoples' perception
of them and their products.
As for the copyright issues, some things come to
mind. First of all, Nintendo claims that UltraHLE's
creation would have required bypassing of certain
security features. Personally, I'm pretty curious
as to what this feature is, exactly.
If the security feature prevents any form of
"personality" replication of components, subsystems,
and rom images on the chips of the N64 units, and
they can prove this, then they are right. UHLE
may have broken US federal laws in circumventing
copyprotection features.
Rom images are another area. True, in the past,
there was a precedent set. The emulation of one
platform's hardware so that the software from one
platform can be played on another hardware platform
was deemed okay.
However, how those rom images are obtained is
something more of a gray area.
how exactly did someone get the image of the rom
from the cartridge/circuit and into digital form
for copying. If the cartridge had copyprotection
on it to prevent direct reads/copies of the
roms, then this may violate US federal law in
regards to circumventing copyprotection methods as well.
It just depends on how it was done and the means
by which it was done.
To be quiet honest, I believe the arguments of some
are right in that emulators CAN increase sales of
games of the platform being emulated. Whether it
affects sale of the hardware is another matter.
In the end, it all comes down to two things.
Rights and Money.
Emulators mean money. Selling software means money.
And apparently, the right to that software is
quite important as well.
I'm sure that most people agree that warez trading
and pirating does have an effect on a company.
How exactly is probably where most people diverge
in opinions.
Personally, I think it DOES hurt a company when
pirating happens. As for the thought that the
lost sales due to pirating was not a sale which
would have been made anyway, is just an excuse
warez traders use.
If there was no potential sale, then why is there
a market for pirated goods? No, those goods ARE
in demand. Just that when they are available for
a lower price, in this case, heavily reduced
prices, more people are willing to buy. This is
simple economics. Lower the price and the threshold
for purchases changes.
In the end, though, it is the courts which will
decide the issue's legality. But it will be the
users who decide some of the more "messy" issues.
More specifically, responsible users. Warez folk
are getting a free ride while bootleggers and
piraters are getting literally pure profits at
the cost of legitimate companies who have spent
countless hundreds of millions in research and
marketing.
Those who think that warez and pirating doesn't
affect the industry, maybe it would help for them
to start a company and see how much of an affect
it would have when someone rips their ideas.
Just another two cents.
-
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
These guys obviously aren't clueless, but... (Score:1)
If it was just for the fun and challenge of writing such an emulator, they should have just distributed UltraHLE anonymously under an alias instead of posting it on their website.
When are you people going to get it???? (Score:1)
Has anyone from Nintento ever forced, coerced, or otherwise made you shell out $60 for a game? NO! This is the market, people, and Nintendo isn't to blame for this, the consumers are. Your suggestion here, that it's OK to rip off Nintendo because they've been "ripping off the consumer," is rediculous. If it's such a rip-off, don't buy the game. Anyone who claims that Nintendo is ripping off the consumer, and then turns right around and pirates the ROM in retaliation, is a complete hypocrite.
This is wrong (Score:1)
A) interfering with the sales of MS Exchange(or whatever their crappy smtp server is called)
B) patent infringement against the 1999 MS patent for transfering electronic messages across a computer network, based upon their patent for using a medium to transfer information between two devices, based upon their patent for using a form of communication to transfer information between two objects, based upon their patent for
Let nintendo know how you feel.
nintendo@nintendo.com
Why would we need an emulator to pirate? (Score:1)
I still don't see much of a difference (Score:1)
I currently have several NT workstations use a CVS copy of SAMBA as their PDC. This PDC functionality is not a publicly available spec. The SAMBA team has, to the best of my knowledge, reverse engineered the protocol used by the PDC server while communicating with it's clients. Nintendo is claiming damages from lost revenue due to piracy. If they win this case it seems very likely that MS could claim the "emulation" of a NT PDC by SAMBA would encourge people not to purchase NT server. The API of Nintendo and the protocol used by NT PDC are both basically an interface to some service.
The remark about sendmail was simply an exageration about how bad things could get once this "emulation is illegal" mentality take hold. But it really as far out as it seems. Take cascading style sheets for example. The W3C whose policy, from their own web page is "W3C is dedicated to creating specifications and software that are available to the public for any purpose and without fee or royalty." did a great deal of the grunt work on CSS technology, and MS, being the bottom feeding leeches on inovation they have proven themselves to be time and time again, patented the technology. Where does this leave the members of the W3C that helped create the technology? In violation of a patent, thats where.
Sony lost its suit, so Nintendo probably will to (Score:1)
I don't Nintendo will win its suit against people
who made an emulator and aren't even charging
for it.
Now if Nintendo went after sites that distributed
N64 Roms they might have a chance...
First amendment... (Score:1)
It would be a nice "up yours nintendo message".
Backups unnecessary? (Score:1)
To my trusty CD-ROM backup and UltraHLE, that's where.
An angle that nobody has mentioned. (Score:1)
Should UltraHLE/SGS become a viable console alternative, I can now produce a game, and market the rom/game image w/o ever having to have Nintendo or Sony approve it, or take a slice of the profits. A plus for garage developers, a minus for the industry giants.
Glad to see this lawsuit (Score:1)
It's not only just emulators. (Score:1)
Nintendo 64 sucks anyway. There are no real role playing games that has been released in N64 that is as good as Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy VIII and Zelda 64 simply sucks. Maybe if they started releasing better games and spent their money on real talent instead of hiring stupid lawyers then they would probably do better in their business.
Wait, that's new...kill it! (Score:1)
Once these industries are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new marketplace, they'll conveniently forget that they didn't invent everything all by themselves. Hell, they'll probably try to patent it.
-tak
Flaw with your argument (Score:1)
Depends on where you live. If you live in a place like California, this may be true. Where I live, the defacto rule is pretty much that if it has a place to screw a license plate onto it, it is street legal. We have no inspections, ever. No emissions checks, ever. Registration and licensing can be (and normally are) done entirely by mail. Licensing for kit cars, replicas, home built hot-rods, and highly modified production cars is not handled much differently, all you have to do is fill out a request for a title and pay a fee -- no inspection or appearance in person necessary.
If you can build a car with a turboshaft engine that even comes close to sane sound levels, you would have no trouble licensing it or driving it on the freeway around here.
or modify aircraft flight characteristics, etc.
You haven't ever heard about experimental aircraft or ultralights then. I know several people who are into those hobbies, and they don't have to follow the same rules as for regular commercial aircraft. Ultralights in particular, hardly have to follow any rules at all.
Bogus. (Score:1)
C'mon Nintendo, lighten up. The thought that people are going to quit buying N64 games and download warezed roms for their PCs is absurd.
Piracy and PC games (Score:1)
I wonder what makes Nintendo and Sony think their software is so unique as a target of piracy. They seem to take it for granted that if they have a proprietary hardware platform, no one will ever be able to pirate their software.
Time to wake up guys. Piracy happens, but it hasn't killed the PC software industry yet, and it surely won't kill you.
yeah (Score:1)
N$ntendo (Score:1)
That's like signing a Non-disclosure agreement that bans you from working for a competitor for a full year after leaving an employer, without compensating you for it. The law clearly holds (As far as I am aware) that you must recieve specific compensation for a moratorium like that.
It's not a binding statement. How else are you supposed to protect your software? What if the software goes out of distribution? Oh gee.. we didn't think of that. At least with a backup copy you could have a new ROM burnt for you after Nintendo had given up that product.
---
Legality of ROM images (Score:1)
Again, there is nothing illegal about an emulator like this. It is designed to mimic the behavior of a N64 console. Nintendo suing these boys would be like Microsoft suing the creators of Wine. It doesn't matter WHAT Nintendo puts in their license agreements. Since the authors cannot be shown to have done this for the sole purpose of pirating software, then the case is almost non-existant. Their license agreements I am sure are as harsh as they can make them, but they will not stand up to the test of legal scrutiny.
---
n64 emulator BS (Score:1)
If this was such a BIG deal, Macro$haft would have sued the developers of dosemu long ago, for the development of a MS based dos emulator.
Nintendo, think about how ludicrous your accusations are. Your argument is the same as suing Smith & Wessen for selling guns that kill. How can you sue someone for making the information available, it is up to the end user to abide by the license agreements.
--nuff said
Nintendo Redponds (Score:1)
I'm sure you're well aware of the potential for abuse of an Email address
(spam, etc). Plus, sending a letter takes a little more thought and
effort. For these reasons, I'm not at liberty to release Email addresses
for Nintendo's legal department. If someone feels strongly enough about
this issue, I would encourage them to write a well-thought out letter. I
know it's the 90's but people do still send mail the "old fashioned" way!
Also, please be aware that because I am not a member of Nintendo's legal
department, all of my statements should not be taken to be official
responses from Nintendo on this issue. Thanks.
DANO
At 01:04 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey,
>
>Thanks for the snail mail address, but most of your customers have moved on
>to this thing we call the 90s. Does your legal department HAVE email
>addresses; do they LIVE in the 90s? Also, this message will be reposted on
>Slashdot.org for your and your consumers viewing pleasure. Opinions about
>your legal decisions abound there and Nintendo's position WILL NOT BE
>TOLERATED.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Owsen [SMTP:dano@nintendo.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 1:01 PM
>To: jeremy_huckeba@ypb.com
>Subject: Re: EMULATION OF THE N64
>
>I'm not going to address your comments other than to say that in case you
>didn't notice, Sony is taking legal action against Connectix in connection
>with their Macintosh emulation. Believe me, companies don't take things to
>court unless there is a firm, legal backing behind their arguments, and an
>excellent chance at winning.
>
>Leave the legal wrangling to the lawyers. I don't have anything to do with
>this. If you wish to address some comments to Nintendo's lawyers, write to
>them at:
>
>Nintendo of America Legal Department
>4820 150th Ave NE
>Redmond, WA 98052
>
>DANO
>
>At 12:41 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Nintendo
>>
>>It has come to my attention and to the attention of many of my hardcore
>>Nintendo gaming fans that you are attempting to quash a LEGAL, let me
>>repeat that, LEGAL, emulator of the Nintendo 64 for the PC. I want you to
>>know that if you pursue this suit, myself and my gaming friends will make
>>an Internet-wide call to all gamers on all gaming sites, to push for the
>>source code of the emulator to be released. We will also rally together
>>the Nintendo gamers against the greedy bastards at Nintendo that continue
>>to pursue this futile attempt at forgoing the US legal system. In
>>addition, we will call for third-party hardware developers to utilize the
>>source code to develop a cheap, liscense-free version of the Nintendo 64
>>and encourage game developers to write for that platform as it will be
>>compatable with your product, thus allowing them to forgo your outrageous
>>liscensing fees. In short, the laugh will be on you. If you continue,
>and
>>Sony doesn't quash you first, your loyal customers will. If the call is
>>made it will be picked up almost immediately by CNN and other news
>stations
>>hungry to see another company flailing. Dont fuck this up, as you have so
>>many things in the past. Your customers are waiting for you.
>>
>>
>>EMULATORS AREN'T ILLEGAL AND WE, THE USERS OF THE PC AND THE N64, WILL NOT
>>HAVE YOU TELLING US WHAT OUR RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCT WE PURCHASED FROM YOUR
>>COMPANY ARE. CEASE AND DESIST THESE ACTIONS OR YOUR CUSTOMERS WILL TAKE
>>APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST YOU.
>>
>>A former loyal customer...
>>
>>
>---------------------------------------------
>Dan Owsen
>Nintendo Online Manager
>www.nintendo.com
Ultra HLE creators Vs Nintendo (Score:1)
The argument presented about the use of emulators to play previously owned material on your own computer is valid to a point, to expect every one who does own such an emulator to do this is niave in the extreeme.
Most people who get these emulators are more intrested in playing the game then paying for it. They will grab copies of roms they do not own, and keep them as long as they like.
Nearly all of those who wanted to grab the Ultra HLE did not want to see the result of 2 brilliant programmers hard work. They just wanted to be able to play the N64 games without paying for them.
I personally cannot approve of the idea of emulating a console that the creators are still supporting. No one cares if the NES or SNES consoles are emulated today, as they are no longer seriously supported by either Nintendo or the Developers. But Nintendo is still supporting the N64. The loss of potential customers from people having emulators would put a large dent into the profitability of the console. That is why Nintendo is sueing.
They have every right to protect themselves and their developors from the illegal distribution of the roms. It does not matter that the creators of the Ultra HLE will make no money from this. It matters that Nintendo will lose money from it.
END COMMUNICATION