User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:45:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they are still selling those games on the NES classic and probably ports to the Switch too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:48:46 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. The real issue is that our copyright laws last too long. They were extended 4 times in the 1900s, and now last 95 years after publication. The original copyright law from 1790 granted rights for 14 - 28 years. Patents only last 20 years, with an extension allowed for another 6 - 10. Copyright laws are completely screwed up now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Different. Can you digitally (or physically) clone that old beat up truck without using any resources nor enduring any cost upon the manufacturer? ETA: I don't pirate, I pay to play games. But I understand the desire to play and even share games that are not available otherwise to play. iTunes exists because Napster filled a desire that no one met at the time. Offer a real solution, which Nintendo has done recently well... I'm not against the ruling, just the comparison. The real issue is that our copyright laws last too long. They were extended 4 times in the 1900s, and now last 95 years after publication. The original copyright law from 1790 granted rights for 14 - 28 years. Patents only last 20 years, with an extension allowed for another 6 - 10. Copyright laws are completely screwed up now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:52:16 PM EDT
[#3]
To make sure it took, I wanted to again state that it appears that Nintendo actually downloaded game ports from ROM sites and sold them back the public.
https://www.technobuffalo.com/2017/01/22/nintendo-virtual-console-super-mario-rom/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:54:57 PM EDT
[#4]
May I place in print a copy of “any book” which had seen its last print by the owning publisher 20+ years prior and use it for my own financial gain without giving due compensation to the actual owner?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:55:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Thinking of a scenario—you had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 4:59:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that you call it abandonware shows you know nothing of the Matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:00:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please show me where I can buy a copy from nintendo to play on my original nintendo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:05:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please show me where I can buy a copy from nintendo to play on my original nintendo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:12:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To make sure it took, I wanted to again state that it appears that Nintendo actually downloaded game ports from ROM sites and sold them back the public. https://www.technobuffalo.com/2017/01/22/nintendo-virtual-console-super-mario-rom/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:15:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google Nintendo e store. 600+ titles they’re adding to all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:19:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's hilarious. If that's true it's possible Nintendo doesn't even have the source or original binaries for some of these games they own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:30:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which brings up the question, can ROM's even be considered the original IP anymore? If the ROM isn't an exact digital copy of what came on the original cart, and has had to have code added or removed and recompiled then is it even protected by Nintendo/whatever other gaming company or is it that ROM now the IP of the guy who did the work? All that original stuff on the cart was just 1's & 0's created by a computer anyways, so why is a different set of unique 1's and 0's still considered their IP, even if a lot of those 1's and 0's have been created to be exactly the same? If you're having a hard time understanding that, then imagine a digital image that is 100 pixels by 100 pixels. The image is a checkerboard board pattern of white and black pixels. If I go into Paint and create that, and then my wife comes on the computer some time down the road and recreates that without simply using copy & paste, then has she violated my IP? Honestly I don't know the answer to that, but I'm curious how the law accounts for this, as our laws are generally written by people who lack expertise in the technical side of things (example: ATF & bump stocks = machine guns) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It is true. Nintendo ripped a ROM off the Internet and resold it. Leaving intact, the code from the guy that did the original work to get NES ROMs running in emulators. If the ROM isn't an exact digital copy of what came on the original cart, and has had to have code added or removed and recompiled then is it even protected by Nintendo/whatever other gaming company or is it that ROM now the IP of the guy who did the work? All that original stuff on the cart was just 1's & 0's created by a computer anyways, so why is a different set of unique 1's and 0's still considered their IP, even if a lot of those 1's and 0's have been created to be exactly the same? If you're having a hard time understanding that, then imagine a digital image that is 100 pixels by 100 pixels. The image is a checkerboard board pattern of white and black pixels. If I go into Paint and create that, and then my wife comes on the computer some time down the road and recreates that without simply using copy & paste, then has she violated my IP? Honestly I don't know the answer to that, but I'm curious how the law accounts for this, as our laws are generally written by people who lack expertise in the technical side of things (example: ATF & bump stocks = machine guns) And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:31:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nintendo is managed by fucking idiots. They could easily throw up a half-rate website and offer those games for anywhere from $1 to $5 a piece and they would make millions at almost no cost. Same goes for A Link To The Past and F-Zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:34:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because there isn't enough value to justify the cost of production today doesn't mean there won't be tomorrow. Allowing piracy now can hurt that future value by making it even more cost prohibitive to produce because all of the people who would be potential customers have already satisfied their demands through piracy. The cost to produce and market their property became too costly so they pulled it from the market. Tech changed and their costs came down and the profitability returned so they brought their property back to the market. Piracy is now interfering with that so they are getting litigious. The case isn't about copying their property. The case is for the distribution of that copied property. The developers don't have to compete with the individuals who illegally copy their work for their individual consumption. They aren't going to go through all of that work for just your $5 or whatever. Their competition is the people that illegally distribute their property to thousands of people for free which is why they go after them. IP gets a bad wrap because of how the media industry initially handled digital copyright violations in going after the consumers. They were slow to realize that all of those consumers via piracy were just potential customers that their business model failed to market to. Now that they have made their products easier and cheaper to consume there is far less piracy. Technology changed the game though. With it being so easy to copy and distribute works it is far less valuable per capita now which is why everything feels the same as everything else. Music, movies, tv, video games, etc all feel the same as everything else because they have to be to be profitable. They have to market everything to as broad of an audience as they can so they do what they know works. It is very expensive to create new IP because most attempts fail to be profitable now. So the next time you hear someone complain about Fast and the Furious 87 or remaking old IPs know that piracy played a huge role in that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That's a very nebulous standard. If the creator has so little value in their own IP that they can't find a profitable market for it, then whose sales are hurt by copying the IP? What monies are deprived the creator when they refuse to attempt to make a profit on the item you've copied? The cost to produce and market their property became too costly so they pulled it from the market. Tech changed and their costs came down and the profitability returned so they brought their property back to the market. Piracy is now interfering with that so they are getting litigious. The case isn't about copying their property. The case is for the distribution of that copied property. The developers don't have to compete with the individuals who illegally copy their work for their individual consumption. They aren't going to go through all of that work for just your $5 or whatever. Their competition is the people that illegally distribute their property to thousands of people for free which is why they go after them. IP gets a bad wrap because of how the media industry initially handled digital copyright violations in going after the consumers. They were slow to realize that all of those consumers via piracy were just potential customers that their business model failed to market to. Now that they have made their products easier and cheaper to consume there is far less piracy. Technology changed the game though. With it being so easy to copy and distribute works it is far less valuable per capita now which is why everything feels the same as everything else. Music, movies, tv, video games, etc all feel the same as everything else because they have to be to be profitable. They have to market everything to as broad of an audience as they can so they do what they know works. It is very expensive to create new IP because most attempts fail to be profitable now. So the next time you hear someone complain about Fast and the Furious 87 or remaking old IPs know that piracy played a huge role in that.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:34:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can that be considered more of a hardware issue? Not so much a content issue? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. If you own an original NES and NES cartridges you are far better off downloading ROM's and playing them on an emulator than risking your physical copies. Regardless of the law, you paid for those games and if you want to make/aquire copies of them you should be free to do so. Once you start distributing those copies to somebody who is not a legit owner or profiting then there is an issue, but IMO it's the end users issue not the distributer. Kinda like selling guns private party, you're not liable if they are a prohibted person and they hide that from you, that's on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:39:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why I only play with myself. All I need is some CLP lube and an old sock. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:42:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Google Nintendo e store. 600+ titles they’re adding to all the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:45:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Google Nintendo e store. 600+ titles they’re adding to all the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. I don't want to play it on Nintendos shitty emulator. I tested the difference and their emulation sucks compared to oem equipment. On oem equipment I can beat super Mario two losing only 4 lives is my record so far. It was a real struggle to beat the game on the virtual console. Way to rip me off for that one Nintendo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:49:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? I can by a physical cartridge and pop it into my 8 bit nintendo? I don't want to play it on Nintendos shitty emulator. I tested the difference and their emulation sucks compared to oem equipment. On oem equipment I can beat super Mario two losing only 4 lives is my record so far. It was a real struggle to beat the game on the virtual console. Way to rip me off for that one Nintendo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abandonware. Can't buy it from the manufacturer any longer, yet they still want royalties. Kind of like selling copies user manuals that a company used to charge for but no longer publishes. I don't want to play it on Nintendos shitty emulator. I tested the difference and their emulation sucks compared to oem equipment. On oem equipment I can beat super Mario two losing only 4 lives is my record so far. It was a real struggle to beat the game on the virtual console. Way to rip me off for that one Nintendo. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 5:55:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suppose one could try to argue a DMCA exception via, "substantively transforming the work", as it is now running in an emulator, whereas before it wasn't. Though, I'd argue that is derivative and not fair use. And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:04:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Nintendo can sue for using their IP, the guys who coded the emulators can sue Nintendo for the same. I say good for Nintendo. Why should they waste the $ paying for someone to do the work that someone else voluntarily did for free and then violated law to distribute? I am actually impressed they did it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:21:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Part of copyright protection is also a copyright owner's right to say "no." No, I don't want that shared anymore. It still belongs to me and just because I'm not publishing it anymore doesn't make it no longer under my control. Thinking of a scenarioyou had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:24:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Just a question, we have laws pertaining to the adverse possession of real property if abandoned, why not the same for intellectual property?
I'm not saying it's the exact same thing but it does rhyme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:25:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How would they have copyrighted their pirated material? I say good for Nintendo. Why should they waste the $ paying for someone to do the work that someone else voluntarily did for free and then violated law to distribute? I am actually impressed they did it. That's why I was asking the questions I did earlier, because I'm not sure if our IP law addresses these things at a technical level or a in a broad sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:26:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Instead of just bitching, let me propose a solution. When it comes to IP, in order to sustain a case for copyright infringement, the Plaintiff must (1) establish that he has provided a legal means for distributing the material in the same marketplace, and in a similar manner; (2) the Plaintiff must establish that he sent a cease a desist letter to the Defendant, or made reasonable efforts to contact the Defendant, prior to filing suit; and (3) Plaintiff's damages are limited to the time period after he sent the cease and desist letter. That way you can reasonably protect IP without making it an industry killing cash cow for IP lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:28:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you really want to stop someone from reading your bad works, invent a time machine. Go back to 1970 and prevent Al Gore from inventing the internet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Part of copyright protection is also a copyright owner's right to say "no." No, I don't want that shared anymore. It still belongs to me and just because I'm not publishing it anymore doesn't make it no longer under my control. Thinking of a scenarioyou had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? There are a lot of problems with that. Copyright holders have a right to create their "brand" and control their brand. Forbidding others from distributing (and even profiting from) their old stuff is a part of that. I understand the frustration when we the consumers want something and it's artificially made unavailable to us. I'm not saying I've never watched a TV show or movie on YouTube that was not officially distributed by the copyright holder. But I don't think I'd want copyright law changed so the creator loses any illusion of control over what they created, just because it's currently out of print (or unavailable). Which is what the post I was responding to was suggesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:34:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Copyright holders have a right to create their "brand" and control their brand. Forbidding others from distributing (and even profiting from) their old stuff is a part of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:40:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The digital image thing was not intended to be literal, as if it would need to be copyrighted. I used it as an example because in both cases you can create two original pieces of work/art that are completely identical down to the 1's and 0's. If the example works better as a canvas and paint then think of it that way, I just avoided that because brush strokes, paint thickness, etc are all easy things to consider if you had to break the inconsistencies in the painting down where as a digital image is technically possible to be identical yet unique. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I suppose one could try to argue a DMCA exception via, "substantively transforming the work", as it is now running in an emulator, whereas before it wasn't. Though, I'd argue that is derivative and not fair use. And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:42:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the copyright is the crux of the issue. And their not identical and unique. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I suppose one could try to argue a DMCA exception via, "substantively transforming the work", as it is now running in an emulator, whereas before it wasn't. Though, I'd argue that is derivative and not fair use. And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:42:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Emulators are not pirated material. They are just software that is programmed to "emulate" the function of the original hardware so that a digital version of the physical game can be processed and ran properly. Now, if those programs include any of the original firmware to achieve that then I'm not sure how that plays out. Also, without knowing the exact specifics of how the emulator was made, I'm not sure if the ROM is a direct copy of the original code on the cartridge or if it's a product of being processed and converted into code that will operate as originally intended inside the emulator software. That's why I was asking the questions I did earlier, because I'm not sure if our IP law addresses these things at a technical level or a in a broad sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How would they have copyrighted their pirated material? I say good for Nintendo. Why should they waste the $ paying for someone to do the work that someone else voluntarily did for free and then violated law to distribute? I am actually impressed they did it. That's why I was asking the questions I did earlier, because I'm not sure if our IP law addresses these things at a technical level or a in a broad sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:46:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It depends on if you can keep balls from touching. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you cloned yourself and fucked it, would it be incest, regular homesexual sex, or masturbation? If we can answer this question I think we can really get to the bottom of the piracy issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:48:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the copyright is the crux of the issue. And their not identical and unique. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I suppose one could try to argue a DMCA exception via, "substantively transforming the work", as it is now running in an emulator, whereas before it wasn't. Though, I'd argue that is derivative and not fair use. And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job. AFAIK, a copyright exists from the moment a piece of art, for example, is created regardless of if it is filed with the government. I think if you want to sue anybody over it you have to file for the paperwork and I'm not sure what's involved with that specifically, and if they can deny it, but I'd think when it comes to an artform it would have to be pretty much guaranteed as long as it's unique and not a copy of somebody else's work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 6:49:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to Nintendo, an emulator is pirated material. As it replicated functions from Nintendo's hardware. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:05:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Emulators are not pirated material. They are just software that is programmed to "emulate" the function of the original hardware so that a digital version of the physical game can be processed and ran properly. Now, if those programs include any of the original firmware to achieve that then I'm not sure how that plays out. Also, without knowing the exact specifics of how the emulator was made, I'm not sure if the ROM is a direct copy of the original code on the cartridge or if it's a product of being processed and converted into code that will operate as originally intended inside the emulator software. That's why I was asking the questions I did earlier, because I'm not sure if our IP law addresses these things at a technical level or a in a broad sense. From what I remember some of the emulators did use proprietary code though. But I might be mixing that up for one of the modding methods of unlocking a previous console. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:10:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you explain the part in red further? AFAIK, a copyright exists from the moment a piece of art, for example, is created regardless of if it is filed with the government. I think if you want to sue anybody over it you have to file for the paperwork and I'm not sure what's involved with that specifically, and if they can deny it, but I'd think when it comes to an artform it would have to be pretty much guaranteed as long as it's unique and not a copy of somebody else's work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I suppose one could try to argue a DMCA exception via, "substantively transforming the work", as it is now running in an emulator, whereas before it wasn't. Though, I'd argue that is derivative and not fair use. And no, your wife didn't violate anything, you will not be granted a copyright on a 1000 pixel checkerboard. Generally, the ROM is still going to be intact, as is, like it was on the cartridge. It's usually not a hack job. AFAIK, a copyright exists from the moment a piece of art, for example, is created regardless of if it is filed with the government. I think if you want to sue anybody over it you have to file for the paperwork and I'm not sure what's involved with that specifically, and if they can deny it, but I'd think when it comes to an artform it would have to be pretty much guaranteed as long as it's unique and not a copy of somebody else's work. Two things can't be unique, if they are identical. If they are indistinguishable, they are not unique. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:13:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I read said they ripped off the header from the rom. The rom is pirated Nintendo IP. If they were injecting emulator code into their version of the game that is obviously different. From what I remember some of the emulators did use proprietary code though. But I might be mixing that up for one of the modding methods of unlocking a previous console. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Emulators are not pirated material. They are just software that is programmed to "emulate" the function of the original hardware so that a digital version of the physical game can be processed and ran properly. Now, if those programs include any of the original firmware to achieve that then I'm not sure how that plays out. Also, without knowing the exact specifics of how the emulator was made, I'm not sure if the ROM is a direct copy of the original code on the cartridge or if it's a product of being processed and converted into code that will operate as originally intended inside the emulator software. That's why I was asking the questions I did earlier, because I'm not sure if our IP law addresses these things at a technical level or a in a broad sense. From what I remember some of the emulators did use proprietary code though. But I might be mixing that up for one of the modding methods of unlocking a previous console. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:13:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree, and think the law should be changed to reflect that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Copyright holders have a right to create their "brand" and control their brand. Forbidding others from distributing (and even profiting from) their old stuff is a part of that. The purpose of copyright is to: "promote the progress of useful arts and science by protecting the exclusive right of authors and inventors to benefit from their works of authorship." Controlling and protecting the creator's body of work is part of that. When control is lost, it may stifle the creativity of that individual, because they could be more hesitant about what they release in the first place. They decide they hate it later or want to make a revised version? The "original" version (which might be dramatically different) could be open for anyone to publish and profit from. That's bullshit. Of course, I guess a workaround could be for the copyright holder to make the old shitty versions to be only available for exorbitantly "limited edition" high prices that nobody would ever afford. So while the old shitty versions would be "available," they wouldn't be available. 
Unless you want the law to have price controls or something, there will likely be workarounds to something like this because it's bullshit. I just don't see it working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:14:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it hurting you if I steal your old clapped out 68 Chevy pickup off your back forty? You're not using anymore... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:15:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Part of copyright protection is also a copyright owner's right to say "no." No, I don't want that shared anymore. It still belongs to me and just because I'm not publishing it anymore doesn't make it no longer under my control. Thinking of a scenario—you had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Thinking of a scenario—you had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:17:48 PM EDT
[#40]
John Deer I think doesn't let you work/repair a tractor you bought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:20:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's hilarious. If that's true it's possible Nintendo doesn't even have the source or original binaries for some of these games they own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To make sure it took, I wanted to again state that it appears that Nintendo actually downloaded game ports from ROM sites and sold them back the public. https://www.technobuffalo.com/2017/01/22/nintendo-virtual-console-super-mario-rom/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:21:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nintendo just revived a 30 year old console. The value of the games on that NES and SNES mini units was hurt by ROM pirates giving away their product for free for all these years. Sitting on IP sometimes allows it to age like wine and grow in value. Nintendo did just that with their NES i.p. How about you write a program, or a fiction novel, then someone somehow gets ahold of it, starts selling it and makes quite a bit of money off it. Meanwhile your plans to someday sell it are ruined by some thief. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How can it be theft when the overwhelming majority of the games are out of print, never to return AND nothing has been taken from the "victim?" Theft involves the transfer of property without consent. Meaning one party is deprived of the property or the value of the property. What value is being transferred from the originator when there is no transfer of property and no plans or action (or market, for that matter) to sell the IP? Calling piracy of deprecated and abandoned software "theft" is akin to calling a self defense killing "murder." In both cases you're calling an activity something it isn't. Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Though, I have to hand it to Nintendo for protecting their IP. I just hope their reputation is worth recouping money for shit they refused to sell in the first place. How about you write a program, or a fiction novel, then someone somehow gets ahold of it, starts selling it and makes quite a bit of money off it. Meanwhile your plans to someday sell it are ruined by some thief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:23:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, that's not what happened, is it? The people who bought the Nintendo retro box were the same people who wouldn't have pirated the ROMs in the first place. The people who pirated the ROMs were never going to buy the retro box, either. In fact, I'd argue that but for the piracy of retro ROMs, Nintendo would have never discovered the retro market. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How can it be theft when the overwhelming majority of the games are out of print, never to return AND nothing has been taken from the "victim?" Theft involves the transfer of property without consent. Meaning one party is deprived of the property or the value of the property. What value is being transferred from the originator when there is no transfer of property and no plans or action (or market, for that matter) to sell the IP? Calling piracy of deprecated and abandoned software "theft" is akin to calling a self defense killing "murder." In both cases you're calling an activity something it isn't. Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Though, I have to hand it to Nintendo for protecting their IP. I just hope their reputation is worth recouping money for shit they refused to sell in the first place. How about you write a program, or a fiction novel, then someone somehow gets ahold of it, starts selling it and makes quite a bit of money off it. Meanwhile your plans to someday sell it are ruined by some thief. In fact, I'd argue that but for the piracy of retro ROMs, Nintendo would have never discovered the retro market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:30:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is absolutely theft. What if Nintendo plans to sell these old games in 30 years? These emulator companies flooded the market with the games illegally, so Nintendo wouldn't be able to sell them for much profit now. The games are Nintendo's, to do with as they please. Companies like JLN (NES Ninja Turtles) are long gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:32:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have never had rights to those works "forever" the only issue is over how long you can expect the state to prevent them from entering the public domain. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Thinking of a scenario—you had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? Many copyright owners don't rake in the big bucks over one work, but maybe a combination of many works, and over the years the proceeds from the various works add up to a living. Or, they may work hard their whole life (let's say writing songs) but only a few songs make it big. Making those big songs that everyone enjoys now required them to work fulltime for XX years. The other non-money-making songs weren't crap, it's just that's how it is with many creative professions. Copyright protection for everything they do, throughout their whole life, may allow them to afford to continue working in that field and have the opportunity to create more of the same. There are a few outliers like Salinger who live off the profits of a few works and don't do anything after that. Most people have to keep creating to make ends meet and the royalties or payments on their body of work helps them afford to do that. There are those who say, "Then they should get another job!" or "Tough shit, do REAL work!" Oh well, then. They'll stop creating. Time is money and if people don't have the time, they won't create as much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:34:03 PM EDT
[#46]
::laughs in Raspberry Pi::
Not that I condone it, nor partake myself. I have no interest in Nintendo games. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:34:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:34:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the ROM creator changes a few lines of code, it is no longer an identical copy. Does that change anything? How much would have to change? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:35:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody is talking about "forever," but at least the life of the creator. I don't subscribe to the Disney model of extensions forever, but I don't have a problem with life of the creator and maybe some time for the heirs. Many copyright owners don't rake in the big bucks over one work, but maybe a combination of many works, and over the years the proceeds from the various works add up to a living. Or, they may work hard their whole life (let's say writing songs) but only a few songs make it big. Making those big songs that everyone enjoys now required them to work fulltime for XX years. The other non-money-making songs weren't crap, it's just that's how it is with many creative professions. Copyright protection for everything they do, throughout their whole life, may allow them to afford to continue working in that field and have the opportunity to create more of the same. There are a few outliers like Salinger who live off the profits of a few works and don't do anything after that. Most people have to keep creating to make ends meet and the royalties or payments on their body of work helps them afford to do that. There are those who say, "Then they should get another job!" or "Tough shit, do REAL work!" Oh well, then. They'll stop creating. Time is money and if people don't have the time, they won't create as much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Copyright laws are a great way to ensure that people will continue to innovate. People should be able to profit from their intellectual property, certainly. However, once that IP is abandoned or removed from the market, copyright restraints should be removed, in my opinion. Thinking of a scenario—you had some really shitty fiction that you wrote when you were very young. You've since gotten a lot better and have improved your "brand." You want those old shitty works off the market for good because they're embarrassingly shitty. You realize that people can still get used books in dusty bookstores, but that should be the end of it. Why should your desire for them to remain unpublished be ignored? Why should you lose the rights to your work and watch someone else publish it against your wishes? Many copyright owners don't rake in the big bucks over one work, but maybe a combination of many works, and over the years the proceeds from the various works add up to a living. Or, they may work hard their whole life (let's say writing songs) but only a few songs make it big. Making those big songs that everyone enjoys now required them to work fulltime for XX years. The other non-money-making songs weren't crap, it's just that's how it is with many creative professions. Copyright protection for everything they do, throughout their whole life, may allow them to afford to continue working in that field and have the opportunity to create more of the same. There are a few outliers like Salinger who live off the profits of a few works and don't do anything after that. Most people have to keep creating to make ends meet and the royalties or payments on their body of work helps them afford to do that. There are those who say, "Then they should get another job!" or "Tough shit, do REAL work!" Oh well, then. They'll stop creating. Time is money and if people don't have the time, they won't create as much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2018 7:42:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I add those to the nes retro I bought? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Google Nintendo e store. 600+ titles they’re adding to all the time. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
