IDSA BOYCOTT: here are the companies...
baronvr
www.davesclassics.com) to stop the non-profit distribution of obsolete
(profitwise) classic games. Take a stand now.
IDSA BOYCOTT: here are the companies...
Acclaim Entertainment
Accolade
Bethesda Softworks
Capcom
Crystal Dynamics
Disney Interactive
DreamWorks Interactive
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
Fox Interactive
GT Interactive Software
Hasbro Interactive
Interactive Magic
Interplay Productions
Kesmai Corporation
Konami (America) Inc.
Lego Media
LucasArts Entertainment Company
Mattel Media
Maxis
MGM Interactive
MicroProse
Microsoft
Midway Home Entertainment, Inc.
Mindscape
Multitude, Inc.
Namco Hometek Inc.
Nintendo of America
NovaLogic Inc.
Ocean of America/Infogrames Entertainment
Panasonic Interactive Media
Psygnosis
Purple Moon
Radical Entertainment
Sega of America
Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.
SouthPeak Interactive
The 3DO Company
THQ, Inc.
Ubi Soft, Inc.
Universal Studios
Virgin Interactive Entertainment
...and here are sites if you'd like to make your feelings known:
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/clear/
http://www.idsa.com/antipiracy/leads.htm
--
Spike's Big Vectrex Page
http://members.xoom.com/baronvr/
[please remove spamblock before emailing...]
--
Robert Batina
: IDSA BOYCOTT: here are the companies...
[snip mondo huge company listing]
So, basically, you are asking that well all pretty much never play a
videogame again, as well as eliminating nearly any electronics we want to
own in the future. I think not. :)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infinet.com/~rbatina - Robert J Batina - rba...@infinet.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Writermike - OtakuBoy
>videogame again, as well as eliminating nearly any electronics we want to
>own in the future. I think not. :)
Wait! I didn't see the companies that make paddle balls! Those balls and
wooden paddles attached via a rubber band. You can still buy a game from
them! ;)
ob
baronvr
different things to different people. Whatever you think they mean is ok
with me. For me, it means buy used for a while and mail a letter in protest.
I only provide information and let people do what they will, even nothing.
As one person pointed out, Sega has publicly expressed flattery that their
games are emulated, so boycotting every company on the list wouldn't even be
the best way to address the issue. Appologies to anyone who assumed the
wrong thing...
baronvr
P.S. I dont want to hear anyone 'downing' paddle balls! They are very
entertaining in their own right!
--
Spike's Big Vectrex Page
http://members.xoom.com/baronvr/
[please remove spamblock before emailing...]
--
Writermike - OtakuBoy wrote in message
<72l3ki$dev$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
ManicButt
>http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/clear/
It won't hurt to send a form e-mail there, go for it.. I already did, along
with some other comments.
But don't be lazy and stop there! A real, pen-and-paper letter is much more
persuasive (and less easily deleted). Write it in longhand if at all possible,
don't just run off a cut-and-paste form letter. I suggest using the substance
of the letter provided at the above URL, but put your own spin on it and be
persuasive. Try to keep their points in mind (see
http://www.idsa.com/about/faq.htm for their side) when you write.
Here's the snail mail address for the IDSA.
Interactive Digital Software Association
1775 Eye St., NW Suite 420
Washington, DC 20006
Bear in mind that the IDSA is just a non-government trade association, and
won't take any radical action without the consent of its members. You probably
won't even get a letter of acknowledgement, since the association has already
made up its mind. Still, sending a message with your thoughts is invaluable.
It wouldn't hurt to pop a letter off to your favorite "classic" game maker (if
they still exist!) as well.
Personally, I'm steamed that IDSA has finally taken action against small-time
classic ROM fans. I'd love to be able to purchase more classic emulation packs
a la Namco and Midway's Digital Eclipse (I have practically everything
available in a classic vein), but failing to offer more classic titles while
simultaneously barring access to emulators really rubs my rectum the wrong way.
To be honest, I'm not going to boycott Nintendo, Midway, Sega or Namco over
their collaboration in this. They are putting out quality product, and are not
doing the heavy lifting in this witch hunt. That said, I would happily reward
any company that shows an inlking of customer support instead of lust for
profit. I offer my gratitude, respect, and continued consumer loyalty to the
next company that releases their moldy oldies to the public for not-for-profit
hobbyist use. The Vectrex people did it, as did the Starpath Supercharger
people. Activision, for example, has proven at least three seperate times that
they can't do emulation nearly as well as "underground hackers." It's time to
give the oldies back to the people who can best appreciate them. Us.
baronvr
The Maverick
>
> This organization has taken action (most visibly against
> www.davesclassics.com) to stop the non-profit distribution of obsolete
> (profitwise) classic games. Take a stand now.
I should take a stand against someone who wants to protect intellectual
property rights? I think not...
the Mav
--
THE SPACE AND FANTASY GAMER'S GUIDE http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/
The guide is a comprehensive game index for the magazines Space Gamer,
Fantasy Gamer, Ares, Interplay, Nexus and VIP of Gaming.
NEW! INTERPLAY #1 will be given away with the first 25 copies sold!
Bryan Costin
>baronvr wrote:
>>
>> This organization has taken action (most visibly against
>> www.davesclassics.com) to stop the non-profit distribution of obsolete
>> (profitwise) classic games. Take a stand now.
>
>I should take a stand against someone who wants to protect intellectual
>property rights? I think not...
>
>the Mav
>
The IDSA may have every legal right to protect their intellectual property,
but a wise organization will carefully examine the situation to first
determine whether their enforecment actions will do more actual harm than
the alleged violations. I do not think that the IDSA has been wise where
emulation is concerned. A carefully measured response is called for in this
case.
People developing emulators and dumping ROMs aren't out to screw the
IDSA--they just want to play games that the IDSA member companies long ago
decided to abandon to bit-rot and landfills. I suspect that these same
member companies now have decided that there is money to be made here, after
all, and want to brush aside the scofflaw rabble that is infesting "their
market". Aside from being darn inconsiderate to the folks who kept these
games alive all these years, alienating the retrogaming market will
obviously _not incline those same people to buy retail retrogaming products
from the very people who they attacked the first time.
Paramount, Disney, and many other companies have found out the hard way that
cracking down on every technical copyright violation is just not a smart
idea. Legally, these companies may have been justified in demading, for
example, that all images of Mickey Mouse and Captain Kirk be removed from
personal web pages on penalty of law. But the resulting bad-press and
ill-will quickly forced them to adopt a more accomodating public policy.
What we need is for the IDSA to get some well-deserved bad publicity for
their poor handling of this situation, and perhaps then they will reach the
same enlightened conclusions. I certainly hope so.
-Bryan
Otter
>
> People developing emulators and dumping ROMs aren't out to screw the
> IDSA--they just want to play games that the IDSA member companies long ago
> decided to abandon to bit-rot and landfills. I suspect that these same
> member companies now have decided that there is money to be made here, after
> all, and want to brush aside the scofflaw rabble that is infesting "their
> market". Aside from being darn inconsiderate to the folks who kept these
> games alive all these years, alienating the retrogaming market will
> obviously _not incline those same people to buy retail retrogaming products
> from the very people who they attacked the first time.
>
So does this mean Hasbro is going to try to start pawning off copies of
Combat for $19.95 since they own Atari's copyrights? :3
-- Otter
baronvr
the right to spot a bleeding person laying in the road and do nothing, but
its inappropriate.
The strongarm tactics of the IDSA are out of line. Months back Dave was
asked to remove his Genesis ROMS section and did so respectfully and without
argument. That was an action I support. The blanket legal action taken
recently that shut down the site was inappropriate against someone like him
who does respect intellectual rights.
Some other people and myself feel like expressing our opinions about that
with our choice which game companies we choose to purchase from.
Russ Perry Jr
> I offer my gratitude, respect, and continued consumer loyalty to the next
> company that releases their moldy oldies to the public for not-for-profit
> hobbyist use. The Vectrex people did it, as did the Starpath Supercharger
> people.
Not quite true! Supercharger games are NOT available openly for not-for-
profit use. Our use of their games on the StellaCD was gratis, but required
not only no-profit, but also limited numbers, and renegotation for any further
uses. We plan on re-releasing the CD (one of these days!), but WILL be paying
for the use of the games this time since we don't want to limit number of
copies. So, the Starpath games are in quite a different mold than the Vectrex
games, which can be used by anyone as long as it's not for profit (and as a
courtesy, Jay Smith et al would like to see anything done with them).
> Activision, for example, has proven at least three seperate times that
> they can't do emulation nearly as well as "underground hackers."
Unfortunately true, but Activision is a little kinder towards their fans in
that you can join their Game Club to get free 2600 ROMs and an emulator to
play them rather than buying the old Action Packs if you wish, though they
are only releasing two ROMs at a time.
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #105 slapdash(AT) VIDEOGAME ||
|| 847-952-9729 Arlington Hts IL 60005 enteract.com COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
Corey Bell
>
> So does this mean Hasbro is going to try to start pawning off copies of
> Combat for $19.95 since they own Atari's copyrights? :3
>
Sure, after they wrap a 3D engine around it. 'Course, Psygnosis already
did that with 'Assault Rigs'.
CRaB
Writermike - OtakuBoy
>Actually, I never suggested anything except 'take a stand'. Those words
mean
>different things to different people. Whatever you think they mean is ok
>with me.
Oh, I know. I'm just funnin' wit' ya.
Incidentally, there was a time when I thought 'take a stand' meant to
fashion your own deadly weapons. I tried to fill the ball portion of a
paddle ball with some kind of stuff that exploded on impact. But somehow it
kept blowing up on me. I never could figure out why.
ob
Ben
>>
>> This organization has taken action (most visibly against
>> www.davesclassics.com) to stop the non-profit distribution of obsolete
>> (profitwise) classic games. Take a stand now.
>
>I should take a stand against someone who wants to protect intellectual
>property rights? I think not...
I agree 100%. And, since when are Neo Geo games obsolete profitwise? I
still see plenty of them in arcades (along with hundreds of other pirated
arcade and home games at Dave's...).
Ben
Jon Kade
another brick in the wall, by saying:
>>...and here are sites if you'd like to make your feelings known:
>>http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/clear/
>To be honest, I'm not going to boycott Nintendo, Midway, Sega or Namco over
>their collaboration in this. They are putting out quality product, and are not
>doing the heavy lifting in this witch hunt.
Nintendo shuts down ANY rom sites it sees.
>Activision, for example, has proven at least three seperate times that
>they can't do emulation nearly as well as "underground hackers." It's time to
>give the oldies back to the people who can best appreciate them. Us.
Did I mention that they OFFICIALLY use Stella now? Go to
http://www.activision.com/club/
_____________________________________________________________________
- Jon G. Kade - http://members.aol.com/ZK2Web -
- JGK...@earthlink.net - -
- ICQ: 9302189 - ZK² Technologies Inc. -
_____________________________________________________________________
Floyd Code: v1.2a r TW 0/0/ FD 3+ 0 TW 4 0 .9% <6oct98>
Classic Gaming Code: v. 1 VX 1/0 26 13/3 <6oct98>
scott...@netscape.net
Neo Geo games are an exception to the rule ... you can't sit there and tell me
an Atari ST game, or a Commodore game makes a profit for anyone. Even a NES
game (and I would argue Genesis, although Sega's selling it as it's all they
got anymore) is not profitable.
And moreso, I think the point is that people who program emulators should not
be cast in such a horrible light. Emulation is not warez, nor should it ever
be regarded as such. Warez is a bunch of ten-year olds hacking out sound and
releasing someone else's work. Emulation is an effort for people to relive
games of their past. Be it totally legal OR totally illegal, there is no
intent to "screw" anyone over. And now that the IDSA wants to get on its high
horse and call emulation another facet of warez, fewer programmers will want
to do it. I think emulation is an amazing thing, and while there is a case
for newer systems like Neo Geo which do churn out arcade bucks, the majority
of the games are harmless ... you CANNOT deny that.
Scott
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Kirk Is
: Neo Geo games are an exception to the rule ... you can't sit there and tell me
: an Atari ST game, or a Commodore game makes a profit for anyone. Even a NES
: game (and I would argue Genesis, although Sega's selling it as it's all they
: got anymore) is not profitable.
: And moreso, I think the point is that people who program emulators should not
: be cast in such a horrible light. Emulation is not warez, nor should it ever
: be regarded as such. Warez is a bunch of ten-year olds hacking out sound and
: releasing someone else's work. Emulation is an effort for people to relive
: games of their past. Be it totally legal OR totally illegal, there is no
: intent to "screw" anyone over. And now that the IDSA wants to get on its high
: horse and call emulation another facet of warez, fewer programmers will want
: to do it. I think emulation is an amazing thing, and while there is a case
: for newer systems like Neo Geo which do churn out arcade bucks, the majority
: of the games are harmless ... you CANNOT deny that.
Unfortunately, you can.
And I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, because I have engaged
in MAME and NESticle.
But think about it; someone owns the rights (probably.) And sometimes
(not often enough) they want to sell their own compilations. Like the
lame-ass-emulator Activision 2600 packs. Like all those packs for PSX.
Like the original Williams Arcade Classics CD. It might not be a goldmine
waiting to be tapped, because most people won't pay a lot for these. But
there's some money to be made, but less if the market is all tapped out
because of MAME and the rest. (Hopefully a company like Williams will
sweeten the deal by including interesting footage and information, but the
main appeal is the games themselves)
Also, there may be problems because some of the characters of the old
games are still being (Mario, Pitfall Harry, et al) used in modern games,
and word has it that companies have to viligantly defend their
"intellectual" property or risk losing it, ala Disney cracking down on a
day care center who had black market Disney-fied walls. But this is minor
relative to taking the market away from money making compilations.
And to be honest, it's amazing how MAME is gaining on "modern times" when
it came to what games it can emulate. It's not too far from taking
money away from some Arcades. Same with the SNES emulators, and Genesis.
I mean hell, some folks have been working on an N64 emulator. I can't see
it happening any time soon, but still-
Emulation will always be a grey to black market unless someone is making
money/getting money back to whoever thought to buy the rights.
(And here's an irony-- if they could, Nintendo et al. would squash any
resells or trade-in of games. I was going to argue that emulation also
takes money away from pawn shops and other used retailers, but then I
remembered that Nintendo would probably to word their contract agreement
so that the enduser can't do jack except play the game once they've bought
it.)
It's likely the sad truth that there will never be a thriving, legal
emulator scene, that only the most popular of games will get legal
emulation/redistribution.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
Love is 90% responsibility. Whatever that other 10 percent is,
it must be quite something. -Taxi Driver Wisdom (NYC)
scott...@netscape.net
> Unfortunately, you can.
>
> And I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, because I have engaged
> in MAME and NESticle.
So have I, along with the newer stuff and the older stuff. My mentality is
that it doesn't bother me, and that it has led me to purchase some older
stuff again (bought a NES just because of emulation rekindling the interest).
But, Nintendo of course couldn't give a crap about that ... Funcoland got the
cash for it.
> But think about it; someone owns the rights (probably.) And sometimes
> (not often enough) they want to sell their own compilations. Like the
> lame-ass-emulator Activision 2600 packs. Like all those packs for PSX.
> Like the original Williams Arcade Classics CD. It might not be a goldmine
> waiting to be tapped, because most people won't pay a lot for these. But
> there's some money to be made, but less if the market is all tapped out
> because of MAME and the rest. (Hopefully a company like Williams will
> sweeten the deal by including interesting footage and information, but the
> main appeal is the games themselves)
True. I've always believed that if companies had a good way to sell the ROMS,
maybe in an "Amiga Forever" type fashion, there wouldn't be as much of it
passing over the web, and there would be a half-decent market for it legally.
That, and the legal having of ROMS would make emulators fun, would allow
freelancers to enjoy programming it again. And to me that's everything. If the
IDSA threatens programmers, no one will do it, and it will die. A three-step
end to Emulation if you will.
> Also, there may be problems because some of the characters of the old
> games are still being (Mario, Pitfall Harry, et al) used in modern games,
> and word has it that companies have to viligantly defend their
> "intellectual" property or risk losing it, ala Disney cracking down on a
> day care center who had black market Disney-fied walls. But this is minor
> relative to taking the market away from money making compilations.
Welcome to the hypocrisy of the corporation I guess ... I can see any company
doing that, and to think society's gone that low is a shame.
> And to be honest, it's amazing how MAME is gaining on "modern times" when
> it came to what games it can emulate. It's not too far from taking
> money away from some Arcades. Same with the SNES emulators, and Genesis.
> I mean hell, some folks have been working on an N64 emulator. I can't see
> it happening any time soon, but still-
The rumor is that we might see an N64 emulator by Sardu of NESticle fame on
December 13th ... I will believe when I see it.
> Emulation will always be a grey to black market unless someone is making
> money/getting money back to whoever thought to buy the rights.
>
> (And here's an irony-- if they could, Nintendo et al. would squash any
> resells or trade-in of games. I was going to argue that emulation also
> takes money away from pawn shops and other used retailers, but then I
> remembered that Nintendo would probably to word their contract agreement
> so that the enduser can't do jack except play the game once they've bought
> it.)
I read a case a while back where they were actually almost succeeding in
disallowing video game rentals in Japan ... it could spread here, and that
would be a shame as well. Video games are no more intellectual property than
movies imho in a rental sense.
> It's likely the sad truth that there will never be a thriving, legal
> emulator scene, that only the most popular of games will get legal
> emulation/redistribution.
>
> --
> Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
> Love is 90% responsibility. Whatever that other 10 percent is,
> it must be quite something. -Taxi Driver Wisdom (NYC)
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
gai...@my-dejanews.com
scott...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
> The rumor is that we might see an N64 emulator by Sardu of NESticle fame on
> December 13th ... I will believe when I see it.
>
will it not do what the emulators do?
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dan Mazurowski
>
> The rumor is that we might see an N64 emulator by Sardu of NESticle fame on
> December 13th ... I will believe when I see it.
>
You'll probably need a Cray to run it...
--
Check out my video game retrospect web site!
http://home1.gte.net/smedley/index.htm
To reply via e-mail, edit my ISP address.
Dan Mazurowski
>
> I thought it was the 12th, anyway, what about the Dexdrive for N64 ,
> will it not do what the emulators do?
>
The Dex Drive is a peripheral you plug into your PC that allows you to
save copies of your controller packs. Essentially, you'll be able to
store all you're game saves & high scores on your PC and copy them onto
your controller pack only when you need them. So you'll only need one
controller pack instead of several.
D. Brady
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
First, I must say that I respect and appreciate the work you've done in
preserving the classics.
> The way I see it, the underground arcade emulation took off because of the
> interest in what the commercial products hinted could be accomplished, not the
> other way around.
I disagree. Arcade emulation started as an underground hack. I'm sure
you know some of the folks who got Defender running on the 68K based
Macintosh some years ago. It certainly wasn't legal at the time! As I
understand it, the hack became the basis for Digital Eclipse's future
products.
Arcade emulation though continued in parallel as an underground hack and
as well-focused commercial products.
> MAME did not hesitate to cover properties which were actively in re-release or
> had high potential to be re-released.
Let me ramble a bit here - and let me add that I'm addressing this more
towards the IDSA/Midway, than you in paticular:
(1) You're calling them 'properties'. I'd imagine most of us who played
them called them games. The disparity in language here is indicative that
a middle-ground may never be found.
(2) Re-released on what platform(s)?
Midway still hasn't released a Mac-equivalent of the PC Arcade Classics.
What were Mac users to do? Buy a PC to play 20 year old games? (On this
one issue I can feel morally superior to most. I actually *bought* a copy
of the PC version - which sits on a shelf - while I enjoy, without guilt,
the MAME version of the included games on my PowerMac. I also briefly
owned the SNES port, but found problems with it - Jeff, you might remember
an early conversation we had on this.)
Then again, what about Linux users? Or whatever platform dominates in 2010?
MAME has *proven* that cross-platform emulation is possible. Will
Midway's future emulations project take advantage of this? The source,
after all, is readily available.
(3) Boycott IDSA companies?
I'm sorry, but I can't go along with that. The companies are simply
protecting their copyrighted properties.
(4) Business models
I (and others) have proposed various business models to companies. Most
involve variations on the ability to purchase ROM images from the legal
copyright holders.
Has Midway seriously considered any business model along those lines?
(5) MAME Licensing
Perhaps MAME should change their licensing a bit to allow copyright
holders the right to use MAME in commercial products. Hey - maybe I'll
get a Mac version of Strikeforce someday!
(6) Ethics
It should go without saying that most involved with emulation would love
to run the games legally. IDSA companies should SERIOUSLY look into a
business model that keeps everyone happy.
Then again, I'm probably one of only a handful with the ability to
ethically run the Quantum emulation legally. I actually own the board and
have it installed in my Gravitar/Space Duel/Major Havoc machine...
--
== To reply - remove the reversed 'no spam' from ==
== my e-mail address. Sorry about that! ==
mr_m...@my-dejanews.com
> And moreso, I think the point is that people who program emulators should not
> be cast in such a horrible light. Emulation is not warez, nor should it ever
> be regarded as such. Warez is a bunch of ten-year olds hacking out sound and
> releasing someone else's work. Emulation is an effort for people to relive
> games of their past. Be it totally legal OR totally illegal, there is no
> intent to "screw" anyone over. And now that the IDSA wants to get on its high
> horse and call emulation another facet of warez, fewer programmers will want
> to do it. I think emulation is an amazing thing, and while there is a case
> for newer systems like Neo Geo which do churn out arcade bucks, the majority
> of the games are harmless ... you CANNOT deny that.
You know...there's been a lot of "ga-ga" about this whole ISDA and emulation
that I'm getting this off my chest.
First of all, I only use emulators on my PC because the whole thing takes up
space across "both" my desks that I don't have room who my other computer and
games systems (except the PSX which is quite small). So yeah, I would like to
play all the games I have. If you want the "real thing", then get the real
thing. But if all you care about is just playing the games even on a PC, then
don't knock emulators.
Now...I can understand the position that the game companies make when 'any'
of their games is availible for free and they don't make a profit on it. But
if they want to make profit off the "classic" games, then they really should
make more of an effort of asserting their claims. Namco, Midway, and
Activision did with the release of their complation packs (Whever they're
actually good or not is realitive at this point). But for the majority of
older stuff like 2600 games, especially from thrid party companies that no
longer exist, then the question is who "even" holds the rights anymore? That
and the issue of making copies of games to run on the emu's was something I
first asked about when PC Xformer first came out.
What "I" try to do is something called ethical emulation. That is I only get
the games that I already own. And for some reason I can't make a "backup"
copy for myself then I will download them off various sites. According to
federal law, generally speaking, you are allowed to make a backup of your
software program provided you only use one of those copies and not give or
sell any copies. And if you no longer own the orginal program then you
should'nt have the copy around. This basically applies to not just games but
the OS's running on the emulated systems. Now up until now, there's no
reason - save for actual fear of losing your program - for having a backup of
a game. It was mostly pirates who crack the games to sell to other people.
But now with emulators, you have to have a copy on an image file in order to
use it (ie you can't just stick in a 5 1/4" floppy of game cart in your PC).
Unless you want to build some sort of cart reader, then yeah you would have
to download a pre-made "backup" somewhere.
I read on thise newsgroup the concerns of Jeff Vascour who is trying to make
a living from the Arcade's Greatest Hits series. He and others could make
more profit from releasing them on the PC, but with MAME and the free games
why would they? So in respect to Jeff, and all the other such programers I
(myself) would only get the Namco, Atari and Midway/Willams arcade games to
play on my PC which I already own for the Playstation. Why would I play
these "backups" on a PC? Centipede with a mouse...Tempest with antialasting
vectors...any Namco game without that cumbersome Museum interface...need I go
on? This way they can still make a living off the PSc games I bought.
But I do not assume that 'everyone' will reframe from downloading such games
without buying them in their orginal form, I am not that naive.
Still...it's also good for going out and collecting those games instead of
just plopping them on a hard drive :)
With that out of the way, I'm addressing the issue of ISDA shutting down
emulation sites. Not only they say that running emulated games of the
Internet is a purely legal action (that emulation is a "grey" issue remeber),
but in a letter to Next Generation they claim that the emulators themsleves
are illegal because they infringe on the properties of hardware producers.
Now how 'does' an emulator work? You basically take the op code instructions
of say a 6502 and translate those to the native op codes an Intel, or Power
PC on a Mac, can use. Plus rerouting hardware and memory registers to work
within the confimes of a PC program. Last I check, this does not involve
reverse engineering of a computer chip and making an illegal clone. It's
only getting one type of program to work on a normally incompatible computer
system. And NG did reply that according to lawyers, emualtors themselves are
not illegal. Just remeber that the ISDA is "not" a law enforcement of the
federal goverement but a group of software companies that work in conjunction
with law enforcement to end software piracy (illegal copying and selling the
bootleg copies). I can respect them for protecting royalties for prgrammers,
but before they get on a white horse and go on a witchhunt burning emulator
coders...I suggest to hit the law books and have binding proof before they
even go public.
However, "some" emualtor people aren't blaimless themeselves. There's an
issue of running Neo Geo games, which are still making money, and other
current games on MAME. Why???? Even the fastest Pentium II Pro on the
market can't run MK3 at full speed! I can see them doing games that no one
is making any money off (like those classic coin ops whose company names I
can't remember anymore). That may be in the grey area, but Neo Geo stuff is
an entirely different matter. I wonder if that was the pollen that attracted
the ISDA bees...
There, that's my total view on the emualtion issue. And yes, I do download
images of games that I already own for PCAE and BioNES. The only exception
is a copy of Tengen Tetris which legally does not exist or suppose to exist.
Eric Noss
a.k.a.
Mr. Maddog
Jon Kade
just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>The only exception
>is a copy of Tengen Tetris which legally does not exist or suppose to exist.
So...is it illegal to own? Does it infringe on Nintendo's trademark?
Yup, yup, yup! Are you gonna throw away your illegal copy, Mav? ;-)
Jeff Vavasour
>I disagree. Arcade emulation started as an underground hack. I'm sure
>you know some of the folks who got Defender running on the 68K based
>Macintosh some years ago. It certainly wasn't legal at the time! As I
>understand it, the hack became the basis for Digital Eclipse's future
>products.
I think you're completely missing the point. I said that there were no
publicly available emulations. It was not ROMs and code distributed on the
'net, which is what I'm talking about.
As for Digital Eclipse's demo, hmm, it was demo'ed *to* Williams, in
negotiation with Williams for the rights to the very properties in question,
and reverse-engineered from a coin-op on-premises complete with schematics and
confidential documentation on the custom chips, provided *by* Williams.
Certainly wasn't legal, you say?
It wasn't an underground hack. It was a business venture.
As a matter of course, here's the way work-on-spec often goes: you approach the
company and say "I've got an idea" and they are initially non-commital, but
offer you some opportunity to prove your idea worthy. You work to that goal,
and then you demo it to them. Happens all the time. It's an entirely
different kettle of fish.
>Arcade emulation though continued in parallel as an underground hack and
>as well-focused commercial products.
You make it sound like it was a community. It was not. There was a
home-computer emulation community, and the beginnings of a console-emulation
community, but nothing public about arcade emulation... no organised group
effort.
It is quite possible that others were doing it in the privacy of their own
homes. I can't argue that point. What I can say for certain is that two of
the public forerunners in arcade emulation on the Internet did credit WAC as
their inspiration, and they IMHO were key in creating the Internet arcade
emulation craze that motivated the MAME team to jump into the arena and one-up
them.
Hey, I remember when Dave Spicer was first shopping his coin-op emulation
around. I told him then that I thought he needed to do two things differently
to get commercial interest: 1. don't release it on the Internet and 2. choose
games that can be licenced from one or two sources at a time. The licencing
scattershot made it really difficult for companies to deal with. (Even
Microsoft licenced only Atari games for Microsoft Arcade and only Namco titles
for the sequels. Surely you'll agree that Microsoft should have the money to
licence anything they want?) I stand by this advice even now.
>> MAME did not hesitate to cover properties which were actively in re-release
or
>> had high potential to be re-released.
>
>Let me ramble a bit here - and let me add that I'm addressing this more
>towards the IDSA/Midway, than you in paticular:
>
>(1) You're calling them 'properties'. I'd imagine most of us who played
>them called them games. The disparity in language here is indicative that
>a middle-ground may never be found.
I'll fully admit they're games. Will you fully admit that they are properties?
I chose my words for relevance.
>(2) Re-released on what platform(s)?
Mac, PC (DOS and Windows 95), Super NES, Sega Genesis, Sony PlayStation, Sega
Saturn in that order.
>Midway still hasn't released a Mac-equivalent of the PC Arcade Classics.
Midway didn't. Digital Eclipse did. It was the first platform in fact:
Robotron, Joust, and Defender for the Mac, part of the Williams Digital Arcade
series.
>What were Mac users to do? Buy a PC to play 20 year old games?
[...]
>Then again, what about Linux users? Or whatever platform dominates in 2010?
Come now, this is a lame justification. So, what about the Linux users who
want to play Mario 64? What about the Unix users who want to play Tomb Raider
II? By your argument, people are free to make pixel-perfect versions of these
games for any platform they wish if it's not already out. Go ahead. Try it.
While you're at it, why don't you port it to a few platforms they haven't
gotten to yet, but were intending to.
Better yet, do it the MAME way: attempt a pixel-perfect version of Tomb Raider
II for those platforms that aren't currently supported, which also just
"happens" to run on platforms for which it is already in commercial release.
"Oh, but that's different." Why because Tomb Raider is bigger? Doesn't make
it right, and in their time these games were pretty big too anyway. Because
Tomb Raider is newer? So, how long should you wait? Two years? Five years?
Here's an idea: wait until the time when the law says it's ok... when the
copyright expires. Can't wait that long? Well, that doesn't give you the
right to ignore the rules. The time scales were established for a reason.
Lobby for change, but don't ignore the rules.
This argument goes around in circles. No doubt someone will want to followup
and say "but these are little games that no one cares about anymore." Then I
say "you're wrong... look at what I wrote above... they're in current release
on seven other platforms so there *is* active interest." Then someone else
follows up and says, "yeah, but they're not out for my platform so what am I
supposed to do?" Then I repeat the whole bit above. Then I get the followup
"but these are little games that no one cares about anymore" ad naseum.
>MAME has *proven* that cross-platform emulation is possible. Will
>Midway's future emulations project take advantage of this? The source,
>after all, is readily available.
I do *not* look at MAME source. The last thing I need to do is be accused of
copying someone else's work.
That said, I do have my emulation cores ported to C, and have already brought
them to a couple platforms not previously covered. These things aren't
released, but that's a separate issue.
Surely you don't think the reason that Joust 2 hasn't been released for the Mac
is because no one can figure out how to port it? No. It's "no one can figure
out how to market it and make it worthwhile."
>(4) Business models
>
>I (and others) have proposed various business models to companies. Most
>involve variations on the ability to purchase ROM images from the legal
>copyright holders.
>
>Has Midway seriously considered any business model along those lines?
I can't answer that. I wish I could, but there are confidentiality issues I
have to respect.
In any event these propositions aren't particularly beneficial to the copyright
owners. What's in it for them? They have every right to ask that question you
know. They did pay the money that made it possible for these games to exist in
the first place. Sure, a hacker could probably do as good or better in his
basement, but people don't seem to be clamouring for emulations of home-brew
coin-ops with quite the same verve, wouldn't you agree?
So, what are they to do, hamstring some future possibilities for their games
for minimal return, or hold off in case something more lucrative comes along?
>(5) MAME Licensing
>
>Perhaps MAME should change their licensing a bit to allow copyright
>holders the right to use MAME in commercial products. Hey - maybe I'll
>get a Mac version of Strikeforce someday!
Wouldn't work. MAME is much too nebulous legally for any big game company in
its right mind to touch it.
>(6) Ethics
>
>It should go without saying that most involved with emulation would love
>to run the games legally. IDSA companies should SERIOUSLY look into a
>business model that keeps everyone happy.
I don't think you could actually come up with a business model that would keep
everyone happy... unless you can figure out a way to legitimately licence each
and every property from their respective copyright owner for a price that is to
scale for the industry.
When I had my Atari 2600 emulator going in early 1994, I talked to one of the
execs at Atari Corp. about it. He said, "sure thing... just give us $10,000 to
$15,000 per title we still own -- maybe a bit more for the big ones -- and it's
yours." Believe me... that's way cheaper than the licence fees for the
coin-ops.
- Jeff
Jon Kade
<je...@physics.ubc.ca> became just another brick in the wall, by
saying:
>When I had my Atari 2600 emulator going in early 1994, I talked to one of the
>execs at Atari Corp. about it. He said, "sure thing... just give us $10,000 to
>$15,000 per title we still own -- maybe a bit more for the big ones -- and it's
>yours." Believe me... that's way cheaper than the licence fees for the
>coin-ops.
And now Atari is dead. Talked to Hasbro about it? They may be
interested...
D. Brady
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> As for Digital Eclipse's demo, hmm, it was demo'ed *to* Williams, in
> negotiation with Williams for the rights to the very properties in question,
> and reverse-engineered from a coin-op on-premises complete with schematics and
> confidential documentation on the custom chips, provided *by* Williams.
> Certainly wasn't legal, you say?
>
Perhaps I've not remembered the history correctly - but wasn't the
*original* emulation shown (and included) as part of MacHack(?or similiar)
- prior to any discussions with Williams?
If indeed, the very first Defender emulation was created in the manner you
stated, the knowledge that emulation was possible was certainly made
public. And it was public before the first commercial product - seems
like it was at least a year and a half between MacHack and seeing the box
on the shelves. How it progressed from one mindset to the next during
this time period is anyone's guess.
D. Brady
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >Midway still hasn't released a Mac-equivalent of the PC Arcade Classics.
>
> Midway didn't. Digital Eclipse did. It was the first platform in fact:
> Robotron, Joust, and Defender for the Mac, part of the Williams Digital Arcade
> series.
>
Let me refresh your memory a bit. Digital Eclipse did not release a Mac
version of Arcade Classics.
One - the Mac releases were 3 different products: Joust, Defender, and
Robotron - each purchased independently. The PC 'version' includes those
games plus the very playable Stargate, Bubbles and Sinistar on a single
disc. PLUS extra material. Of course, Mac users got cooler boxes...
Two - the Mac architecture at the time of the relase was shifting towards
PowerPC and away from 68K. Digital Eclipse NEVER released a
PowerPC-native version of the games. Here at home my 8100/100 running
System 8.1 has trouble keeping up with the 68K code.
What still irks me about this whole situation that this product would be
*trivial* for Williams to release. (I'm using the word trivial based on
past posts you've made on this subject.)
This is exactly why MAME has grown as large as it has - business
indifference to their actual consumer market. Instead of adapting to the
market, they are forcing the market to adapt *around* them. Doesn't make
it right, but copyright law and nostalgia/consumer need don't always mix
well.
A very serious analogy here: What if music labels treated their
back-catalog in the same manner?
"Well, xyz did well when it was released, but there just isn't a market
for it. We'd prefer to keep it locked up in our vaults in case we decide
to do somethng in the future with it." Replace xyz with "Velvet
Underground" or "Super Cobra".
It shouldn't be suprising what happens next.
Jeff Vavasour
>And now Atari is dead. Talked to Hasbro about it? They may be
>interested...
The very first moment I heard that Hasbro had bought Atari Corp. early this
year, I found contacts, phoned up, and sent off a letter of introduction with
our corporate history and a sampling of our products.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
>version of Arcade Classics.
No, we released a PC version of the Mac Digital Arcade, with enhancements.
>One - the Mac releases were 3 different products: Joust, Defender, and
>Robotron - each purchased independently.
Different business model, but they were still released.
>The PC 'version' includes those
>games plus the very playable Stargate, Bubbles and Sinistar on a single
>disc.
As a matter of trivia, the PC version was only supposed to be three games as
well. The other three came about because I was bored waiting for other aspects
of the project to clear. I did three more games (albeit Stargate not Defender
II) and to my surprise when I showed them to my bosses they were interested in
including them. I guess it isn't so surprising because it didn't increase
production costs.
>PLUS extra material. Of course, Mac users got cooler boxes...
Further matter of trivia: the DOS version of WAC is actually a dual-format CD,
with the interview supplement also on the disk as a Mac executable. (Not the
case on the Windows 95 version.)
Regardless, (a) why has MAME covered games that *were* done even on the Mac?
And (b) MAME has impacted the market since Mac was marginal enough as it was.
There *was* a plan to do a newer Mac release that mimicked Williams Arcade
Classics' content, but it was scrapped.
>What still irks me about this whole situation that this product would be
>*trivial* for Williams to release. (I'm using the word trivial based on
>past posts you've made on this subject.)
No, you misread. I effectively said trivial to develop, not trivial to
release.
It's funny. Every time I've given an answer on this in one of these
discussions, the person who replies *always* clips it out without comment:
publication and distribution are too expensive to make it viable. (You clipped
it out too in this followup.) People have the mistaken impression that the
development costs most of the money. It doesn't. Publication, distribution
and advertising do. The alternative of a nominal fee for licenced download of
ROMs isn't particularly viable either for a company like Midway (particularly
when the ROMs can be used in emulators that compete on platforms with released
products). About the only viable solution is for a third-party to licence the
rights from Midway for the specific platform (Mac) and then publish it
themselves.
>A very serious analogy here: What if music labels treated their
>back-catalog in the same manner?
>
>"Well, xyz did well when it was released, but there just isn't a market
>for it. We'd prefer to keep it locked up in our vaults in case we decide
>to do somethng in the future with it." Replace xyz with "Velvet
>Underground" or "Super Cobra".
>
>It shouldn't be suprising what happens next.
Personally, I think the Tomb Raider/Mario 64 analogy was a closer one, in that
we're talking about lack of availability on different platforms.
"When they were released" the classic games in question were in the arcades.
Now there is a current re-release on seven platforms in the home market (six
and a half at least).
If you want to use your analogy, it's more like advertising that you have
Alanis Morissette's latest available on vinyl and 8-track.
This doesn't apply to all the games MAME covers, obviously, but I do think they
compounded the offence by crossing the line that much further, covering games
that are either in release or likely to be.
Besides, you say that the industry is indifferent, but how many developers of
emulators on the Internet actually *tried* to get industry interested?
Industry takes time to respond to demand. Microsoft Arcade and Digital Arcade
proved there was an interest. After that, the genre started to grow. It is
considered a genre, so that shows there is a commercial interest. (There's a
list somewhere that frequently gets posted here of just how many classic games
are in commercial re-release these days.)
It also takes the industry time to respond to legal challenges. Do you really
think that the IDSA move was some whimsical idea that came three years after
the issue reared its head? It was the consequence of the companies involved
taking this long to figure out what to do.
- Jeff
D. Brady
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> No, you misread. I effectively said trivial to develop, not trivial to
> release.
>
I had used the word 'develop' as I edited my response, but decided to
leave it out...
If it is true that a Mac version would have been trivial to develop, why
couldn't the ultimate Windows release been dual-platform? You've already
incurred most of the costs involved with marketing and distribution at
that point, and a Mac version would have been icing on the cake.
Mind you, I'm completely aware of the cost and support structure on
products such as these. In my professional life I'm working on release
strategies and infrastructure on business software products for a *very*
large computer company.
Please assume I'm not stupid and can't think things out to their logical
conclusion. Seriously, I'm more on your side than not, but am of the
opinion that the ethics of the issue are much more grey than black and
white.
> The alternative of a nominal fee for licenced download of
> ROMs isn't particularly viable either for a company like Midway (particularly
> when the ROMs can be used in emulators that compete on platforms with released
> products).
The complication is that the original copyright owners have already sold
copyrights to other entities.
> About the only viable solution is for a third-party to licence the
> rights from Midway for the specific platform (Mac) and then publish it
> themselves.
So, does Digital Eclipse own the Mac platform rights or do they own the
generic home computer rights?
> Personally, I think the Tomb Raider/Mario 64 analogy was a closer one, in that
> we're talking about lack of availability on different platforms.
Actually, I'm talking about multiple subjects: multiple-platform, future
platforms, *complete* lack of availability on *all* platforms, copyright
laws, distribution, the reality of the market vs. the perceived market,
treating games as media instead of as self-contained properties, how lack
of availabity in the music industry invariably leads to widely available
bootlegs and how an analogy might be made with arcade games, nostalgia,
worth, etc.
Actually, I'm not even sure why I pursue these discussions. Business has
the complete legal right to control their properties, er, games. End of
discussion.
...but there is a little voice inside my head which keeps on saying,
"...why can't I keep the arcade I frequented in the early 80's living on
my computer? What's so wrong with that?" Then another voice says,
"Copyrights, properties, lawyers, and that whole mess of people on the
'unfun' side of the business."
At least you're on the fun side, Jeff.
I think.
D. Brady
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> There *was* a plan to do a newer Mac release that mimicked Williams Arcade
> Classics' content, but it was scrapped.
>
If I recall correctly, the Mac version of WAC was canceled quite some time
before MAME supported Williams games.
Jeff Vavasour
>Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>couldn't the ultimate Windows release been dual-platform? You've already
>incurred most of the costs involved with marketing and distribution at
>that point, and a Mac version would have been icing on the cake.
Thinking about it more carefully, trivial is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration
but all the same...
At the time, like the multimedia supplement, it would've been a cost incurred
by Digital Eclipse rather than Midway, and we had limited resources. (Of
course, we're talking about Defender II, Bubbles, and Sinistar since the other
three were in current release on the Mac.) Nonetheless, it's an interesting
idea for the future. As you know, though, the multimedia supplement *was*
included in Mac form because it was trivial.
>Mind you, I'm completely aware of the cost and support structure on
>products such as these.
That's why the Mac version of the multimedia wasn't announced on the packaging.
:-)
>> The alternative of a nominal fee for licenced download of
>> ROMs isn't particularly viable either for a company like Midway
(particularly
>> when the ROMs can be used in emulators that compete on platforms with
released
>> products).
>
>The complication is that the original copyright owners have already sold
>copyrights to other entities.
Well, truthfully, if you can follow the paper trail, I don't see this as a
complication. One thing is for sure: copyrights always go somewhere. They
don't just disappear even if the originating company did. Though, there is the
possibility of complication through ongoing licences. For example, Frogger was
created by Gremlin for Sega, but it is currently owned by Konami, yet Hasbro
has exclusive console and computer licence through Parker Brothers' licence
which never expired.
>So, does Digital Eclipse own the Mac platform rights or do they own the
>generic home computer rights?
I believe for a time Digital Eclipse owned generic platform rights for a time
(definitely PC and Mac rights at any rate). That was after Atari Corp. lost
them by default, and Digital Eclipse picked up the licence. When it was
decided to bring it to so many platforms (console and computer), it was decided
that Midway would be better equipped to deal with distribution and publication,
so the rights were reverted to Midway in turn for Digital Eclipse to have
development rights.
>Actually, I'm talking about multiple subjects: multiple-platform, future
>platforms, *complete* lack of availability on *all* platforms, copyright
>laws, distribution, the reality of the market vs. the perceived market,
>treating games as media instead of as self-contained properties, how lack
>of availabity in the music industry invariably leads to widely available
>bootlegs and how an analogy might be made with arcade games, nostalgia,
>worth, etc.
Well, it is a bit difficult to have a debate on something when the topic gets
changed on me without notice. :-)
All I can address is the subset I'm involved in: games that we have done or may
yet do.
>...but there is a little voice inside my head which keeps on saying,
>"...why can't I keep the arcade I frequented in the early 80's living on
>my computer? What's so wrong with that?" Then another voice says,
>"Copyrights, properties, lawyers, and that whole mess of people on the
>'unfun' side of the business."
Though it may not seem it, I sympathise.
I'd ask the same in your position. The thing is, and I'm sure you can
appreciate this too, being a programmer (even when I was a hobbiest programmer)
I wouldn't have liked people not respecting my rights as an author. I'm the
kind of guy who likes to avoid double-standards.
I believe the proof is in my actions, actually. When I was a hobbiest
programmer, I did an Atari 2600 emulator, but shopped it around with
Activision, Atari and Virgin rather than release it on the Internet because I
knew that I couldn't control the piracy that would spin-off from it. That was
before I was aware of much precedent on the matter.
In another post you wrote:
>If I recall correctly, the Mac version of WAC was canceled quite some time
>before MAME supported Williams games.
I don't believe so.
- Jeff
Kirk Is
Right to ROMs.
It seems to me like videogames are different than
books and music in distribution, and therefore should
have different protection.
* A home videogame is published for a short time, for the systems of the
day. A book you buy in 1980 is still good to read. But the Atari game
you bought in 1980 depends on you managing to maintain a flakey system.
Music also changes formats, but less radically. More to the point,
tunes and good literature from twenty years ago have the same types
of quality as the stuff produced today, not so with video games.
* A book or music rerelease can be trivial, but a videogame needs
a highly specialized emulator-- one that few publihers have seem
fit to build correctly. Williams got it right, Microsoft got it wrong.
With movie videos, you can expect a wide, wide range from a numbr
of video stores-- new copies! Not so with videogames, where at best
you can hope for a playable old version, or paying collector's prices.
So unless a reasonable distribution system is present, people need
to satiate this hungr via emulators.
* Arcade games are even worse, with a very narrow field of distribution.
Once an arcade game ages, it's nearly impossible to find. And only
very few get legal distribution later by the copyright holder.
Just some random thoughts on emulation.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"Evolution is blind to the future." --Richard Dawkins
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
hollow some of your points are:
>* A home videogame is published for a short time, for the systems of the
> day. A book you buy in 1980 is still good to read. But the Atari game
> you bought in 1980 depends on you managing to maintain a flakey system.
So, by your logic, I should be allowed to pirate CDs because I'm managing
a "flakey" (relative term!) CD player.
Nope. A book, if put through the same abuse some of these systems have been
through, will not be readable. The only "difference" is that abusing books is
frowned upon, while with video games the abuse was more common.
> Music also changes formats, but less radically. More to the point,
> tunes and good literature from twenty years ago have the same types
> of quality as the stuff produced today, not so with video games.
"same types of quality"? Okay, I think I see where you're coming from, but
you aren't being too clear on this.
I think your comparison is reversed. Music changes FAR more then video games.
In a few decades we've gone from swing to jazz to rock to (ick) rap.
Case in point: Defender is far more similar to Starfox 64 than Sinatra is to
Seal.
>* A book or music rerelease can be trivial, but a videogame needs
> a highly specialized emulator-- one that few publihers have seem
> fit to build correctly. Williams got it right, Microsoft got it wrong.
So, if you aren't pleased with legit copies, you should feel free to
go back to the ROMs?
> With movie videos, you can expect a wide, wide range from a numbr
> of video stores-- new copies! Not so with videogames, where at best
> you can hope for a playable old version, or paying collector's prices.
> So unless a reasonable distribution system is present, people need
> to satiate this hungr via emulators.
Or thrift stores...
>* Arcade games are even worse, with a very narrow field of distribution.
> Once an arcade game ages, it's nearly impossible to find. And only
> very few get legal distribution later by the copyright holder.
I feel unqualified to comment on this one.
I'm not trying to take the opposite side here, I'm just saying there's some
holes in the theories you posted here. Work on it a bit.
Good luck,
Aaron
________________________________________________________
Thank you, U.S. Government, but I would rather have you
protect me from nuclear war than Microsoft.
________________________________________________________
Reply to link...@ptd.net
remove "SpammersWillBeExecuted"
Visit my site at
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ussdefiant
mr_m...@my-dejanews.com
jgk...@usa.net (Jon Kade) wrote:
> >The only exception
> >is a copy of Tengen Tetris which legally does not exist or suppose to exist.
>
> So...is it illegal to own? Does it infringe on Nintendo's trademark?
> Yup, yup, yup! Are you gonna throw away your illegal copy, Mav? ;-)
Humm...hadn't thought of it that way before. Anyways, it's long gone now. I
can live with the Micro$lop version but once again I'll miss the cool music.
:)
I'm sorry if that last statement punched holes in what I was trying to say in
my last posting. But I want to be as honest as I can as I'm still trying to
find the ethical boundaries of emulation.
Chris Cracknell
>>*trivial* for Williams to release. (I'm using the word trivial based on
>>past posts you've made on this subject.)
>
>release.
>
>discussions, the person who replies *always* clips it out without comment:
>publication and distribution are too expensive to make it viable.
To be honest, as cool as these old games are, there's something kind of
sad about companies trying to rerelease them on a new platform.
There's something about it that just reminds me of those musicians
who were one-hit wonders and then spend the rest of their pathetic
careers making cameos on cheesy sit-coms in a vane attempt to continue
to cash in on the success of their faded glory.
Instead of making all this fuss over these old games that are no longer
marketed why don't they put that energy into creating new games. If they're
claiming that emulators ruin the chance that maybe, possibly, sometime in
the future, they might, perhaps, rerelease the game then they should just
make modern sequals and revamped versions of the old classics and then
INCLUDE an emulated copy of the original to further entice classic
collectors to buy their games. It makes more sense to me than actively
going out and trying to piss off a large percentage of your potential
customer base.
I'm not really into emulation myself. Partly because my computer sucks
and partly because it's just not (to me) the same as playing on the real
thing (don't take this to mean I'm anti-emulation, it's just not my thing).
But I think one of the real reasons so many people have emulators and ROM
images is because they can get them easily for free. Very few of these
people would have been willing to pay for them in the first place. This is
why I think it's important that if these companies do decide to rerelease
these old games they do it right, either as part of a new game or as
part of a historical videogame documentary package like Glenn Saunders
has suggested. Instead of blaming emulator authors for their supposed
marketing woes they should look into producing a product that people
would actually be willing to pay for.
CRACKERS
(Just my 2 cents from hell!!!!!)
--
Collector of Atari 2600 carts - Accordionist - Bira Bira Devotee - Anime fan
* http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html | Crackers' Arts Base *
* http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hozervideo/index.html | Hozer Video Games *
Nihongo ga dekimasu - 2600 programmer - Father of 2 great kids - Canadian eh
Jon Kade
just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>In article <36579a37...@news.earthlink.net>,
> jgk...@usa.net (Jon Kade) wrote:
>
>> >The only exception
>> >is a copy of Tengen Tetris which legally does not exist or suppose to exist.
>>
>> So...is it illegal to own? Does it infringe on Nintendo's trademark?
>> Yup, yup, yup! Are you gonna throw away your illegal copy, Mav? ;-)
>
>Humm...hadn't thought of it that way before. Anyways, it's long gone now. I
>can live with the Micro$lop version but once again I'll miss the cool music.
>:)
>
>I'm sorry if that last statement punched holes in what I was trying to say in
>my last posting. But I want to be as honest as I can as I'm still trying to
>find the ethical boundaries of emulation.
Well, I'll say this. Emulations of, say, Turbographx games or MSX
games does not hurt any companies. Does Bomberman compete with
Bomberman 64 (Well, not the PC version =)? Does Metal Gear compete
with Metal Gear Solid? Is there ANY version of Tricky Kick besides the
TG-16 one? (By the way, I only bought Tricky Kick because I tried it
on the EMU, so go figure.)
Kirk Is
: I'm not really sure which side I'm on, but I think I should point out how
I know, I'm kind of a fence sitter myself at this point.
: >* A home videogame is published for a short time, for the systems of the
: > day. A book you buy in 1980 is still good to read. But the Atari game
: > you bought in 1980 depends on you managing to maintain a flakey system.
: So, by your logic, I should be allowed to pirate CDs because I'm managing
: a "flakey" (relative term!) CD player.
No, because you can buy a new CD player retail. Where are you going to
buy a new atari?
: Nope. A book, if put through the same abuse some of these systems have been
: through, will not be readable. The only "difference" is that abusing books is
: frowned upon, while with video games the abuse was more common.
But books don't need an external player. The technology changes out from
under games' feet. Yes, books wear down, and LPs get scratched and
cartridges can be abused. (But in general the carts are more reliable
than the systems themselves!-- and like I said, you can't get new atari)
Without a thriving emulation scene, these games are at serious risk at
being gone for good. I'm too fond of that piece of pop culture to support
leaving the cultural heritage of these games in the hands of the money
changers.
: > Music also changes formats, but less radically. More to the point,
: > tunes and good literature from twenty years ago have the same types
: > of quality as the stuff produced today, not so with video games.
: "same types of quality"? Okay, I think I see where you're coming from, but
: you aren't being too clear on this.
: I think your comparison is reversed. Music changes FAR more then video games.
: In a few decades we've gone from swing to jazz to rock to (ick) rap.
Jesus. I can't believe I'm having a pleasant argument with someone who
says "(ick) rap".
: Case in point: Defender is far more similar to Starfox 64 than Sinatra is to
: Seal.
And Harry Conick junior still makes new Sinatra tunes. But people enjoy
Sinatra tunes without having to be in a retro ghetto.
: >* A book or music rerelease can be trivial, but a videogame needs
: > a highly specialized emulator-- one that few publihers have seem
: > fit to build correctly. Williams got it right, Microsoft got it wrong.
: So, if you aren't pleased with legit copies, you should feel free to
: go back to the ROMs?
If the games aren't faithful to the original, as faithful as technology
allows, our pop-cultural heritage is chipped away, so yeah.
: > With movie videos, you can expect a wide, wide range from a numbr
: > of video stores-- new copies! Not so with videogames, where at best
: > you can hope for a playable old version, or paying collector's prices.
: > So unless a reasonable distribution system is present, people need
: > to satiate this hungr via emulators.
: Or thrift stores...
Not reliable. In both the sense of finding the games, and in the sense of
having what you do find be in 100% condition.
: >* Arcade games are even worse, with a very narrow field of distribution.
: > Once an arcade game ages, it's nearly impossible to find. And only
: > very few get legal distribution later by the copyright holder.
: I feel unqualified to comment on this one.
: I'm not trying to take the opposite side here, I'm just saying there's some
: holes in the theories you posted here. Work on it a bit.
I am.
But like I said, I'm no longer 100% pro-emu anti-copyright.
I don't even see MAME or NESticle as more than a passing amusement for me.
I'm grateful to get through some old games, get through Blaster Master and
the Mega Man series--- and finally see Time Pilot 2084 (or whatever it is)
which I played a few times as a kid, that had a HUGE influence on me, and
that I would likely NEVER BE ABLE TO PLAY AGAIN without MAME. That's
important to me. That's part of our pop-culture heritage.
Now I better hunt around for my copy of the ROMs I feel our precious to my
upbringing and unlikely to make their appearance in my life via some
company thinking there might be money in it.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"Do you know much about love, Chuck?" "Probably not."
--Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown
Jeff Vavasour
>To be honest, as cool as these old games are, there's something kind of
>sad about companies trying to rerelease them on a new platform.
>
>There's something about it that just reminds me of those musicians
>who were one-hit wonders and then spend the rest of their pathetic
>careers making cameos on cheesy sit-coms in a vane attempt to continue
>to cash in on the success of their faded glory.
Interesting thoughts.
Though, I think the difference between one-hit wonders and commercial
retrogaming is that if people don't buy the games, they go away. So, it can't
happen without demand. By contrast, when a "one-hit wonder" appears on a
sitcom, it could as easily be a product of nepotism as anything else.
>Instead of making all this fuss over these old games that are no longer
>marketed why don't they put that energy into creating new games.
Well, it's not like the people making the fuss are typically the same personnel
who actually make the games. (Ok, well, in this particular instance it is, but
I've got a lot of overtime due to me and I can spend it any damn way I please.
:-) )
> If they're
>claiming that emulators ruin the chance that maybe, possibly, sometime in
>the future, they might, perhaps, rerelease the game
Well, that was just a corrolary on my part to explain why they might also be
motivated to protect the rights of games that aren't already in re-release, but
the fact is that a lot of classic games *are* currently in re-release. I'm not
just talking about the Midway, Namco and Microsoft compilations, but other
one-shots too (e.g. the recreation of the original Frogger on the Genesis and
Game Boy... yes, they mightn't be perfect, but neither is MAME).
Anyway, it's not "vaguely, possibly, might be"... there have been four
compilations in the Arcade's Greatest Hits line from Midway, and in this very
thread people are asking if there'll be another. Well, what do you think?
Reasonably speaking, any Midway or Atari Games title ought to be up for grabs
for the next volume, if there's been motivation to make one. They might've
even licenced a few from dormant companies if they felt it would've been worth
it. The availability of underground emulation impacts that whole decision
process.
Hasbro Interactive bought Atari Corp. and all its assets from its previous
owner -- a hard drive manufacturer called JTS. Why do you think they did that?
Do you really think that the hard drive manufacturer had some big title in
development under the Atari name? Why do you think JTS even bothered to buy
Atari Corp. in the first place? The answer to all of the above is "it was for
licences to Atari's classic video game library."
>then they should just
>make modern sequals and revamped versions of the old classics and then
>INCLUDE an emulated copy of the original to further entice classic
>collectors to buy their games. It makes more sense to me than actively
>going out and trying to piss off a large percentage of your potential
>customer base.
Well, Hasbro's Centipede is supposed to have an "arcade mode" in it.
>But I think one of the real reasons so many people have emulators and ROM
>images is because they can get them easily for free.
I concur.
>Very few of these
>people would have been willing to pay for them in the first place.
Well, that maybe true. I'm not taking your statement as *your* attempt to
justify letting the scene continue, but if this is the justification others
were to use, then it's the exact same one used for software piracy, for music
piracy, for video piracy, etc.: "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so you're
not losing a sale."
>This is
>why I think it's important that if these companies do decide to rerelease
>these old games they do it right, either as part of a new game or as
>part of a historical videogame documentary package like Glenn Saunders
>has suggested.
I would love to see Glenn's documentary make it completion.
>Instead of blaming emulator authors for their supposed
>marketing woes they should look into producing a product that people
>would actually be willing to pay for.
Ah, this is the sinister aspect of marketing though: more people are willing to
pay for it if they can't get it for free. (Even if the free alternative is of
inferior quality, it still would satisfy some people's cravings sufficiently
that they wouldn't buy the commercial version, whereas left without the option
to go for the next-best-thing-for-free, they might.)
Case in point: I'm a casual Star Wars fan. I've been following the news of all
the hype, including the recent trailer debut on November 17th. Where I live,
it was going to premiere on the lead of Meet Joe Black. I knew this. Meet Joe
Black is not entirely my kind of movie, but thanks in part to the enthusiasm of
a co-worker, I was starting to think that *maybe* I'd go see Meet Joe Black in
order to see the trailer. Time was going on and I was starting to persuade
myself more and more... I decided that if a buddy of mine that was visiting
town that day was also interested, I'd go. Then I heard the news that it was
going to be on TV that very week (one of those entertainment magazine shows).
Well, that settled it. I decided I'd be happier not paying to see a movie I
wasn't sure about anyway, and would just watch the trailer on TV. Sure, it
wouldn't be as good without the THX and the big screen, but I decided I'd
rather sacrifice the full experience than go the "more pricy" route.
See? I would've paid if I hadn't been able to get it for free, but in getting
even a portion of the experience for free, I was no longer motivated to pay.
I think this applies to a not-insignificant portion of the underground
emulation audience too.
- Jeff
Kirk Is
: Chris Cracknell wrote in message <73g0cu$1...@james.hwcn.org>...
: >There's something about it that just reminds me of those musicians
: >who were one-hit wonders and then spend the rest of their pathetic
: >careers making cameos on cheesy sit-coms in a vane attempt to continue
: >to cash in on the success of their faded glory.
: Though, I think the difference between one-hit wonders and commercial
: retrogaming is that if people don't buy the games, they go away. So, it can't
: happen without demand. By contrast, when a "one-hit wonder" appears on a
: sitcom, it could as easily be a product of nepotism as anything else.
Uh, what?
[snip]
: just talking about the Midway, Namco and Microsoft compilations, but other
: one-shots too (e.g. the recreation of the original Frogger on the Genesis and
: Game Boy... yes, they mightn't be perfect, but neither is MAME).
No, but it's closer.
: Anyway, it's not "vaguely, possibly, might be"... there have been four
: compilations in the Arcade's Greatest Hits line from Midway, and in this very
: thread people are asking if there'll be another. Well, what do you think?
: Reasonably speaking, any Midway or Atari Games title ought to be up for grabs
: for the next volume, if there's been motivation to make one. They might've
: even licenced a few from dormant companies if they felt it would've been worth
: it. The availability of underground emulation impacts that whole decision
: process.
I almost wish that if it was such a marginal decision, they'd just cut
their losses and let the underground have its way.
[snip]
: >Very few of these
: >people would have been willing to pay for them in the first place.
: Well, that maybe true. I'm not taking your statement as *your* attempt to
: justify letting the scene continue, but if this is the justification others
: were to use, then it's the exact same one used for software piracy, for music
: piracy, for video piracy, etc.: "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so you're
: not losing a sale."
Except that it carries the addition " and you haven't given a relaible
expectation of getting this game retail". In a similar vein, I would
probably be in support of Xeroxing of books fallen out of print and
bootleg tapes of LPs no longer kept in relase.
That argument only works until the prospect of Xeroxing books and making
bootlegs threatens to put more works out of release, but I don't see that
happening on a wide scale-- these games went away from all but the
fringes of collectordom for years and years until emulation came back, and
too many depend on underground emus to still live on.
: >Instead of blaming emulator authors for their supposed
: >marketing woes they should look into producing a product that people
: >would actually be willing to pay for.
: Ah, this is the sinister aspect of marketing though: more people are willing to
: pay for it if they can't get it for free. (Even if the free alternative is of
: inferior quality, it still would satisfy some people's cravings sufficiently
: that they wouldn't buy the commercial version, whereas left without the option
: to go for the next-best-thing-for-free, they might.)
[snip semi-decent star wars metaphor]
: See? I would've paid if I hadn't been able to get it for free, but in getting
: even a portion of the experience for free, I was no longer motivated to pay.
: I think this applies to a not-insignificant portion of the underground
: emulation audience too.
Given how many people report fiddling with MAME then putting it aside, and
the number who report buying the Williams pack anyway, I'm not sure I
trust your instincts.
Still, it supports the idea of coming up with a distribution method for
selling use of barebones ROMs-- that way you could both tap into the "i
just want to replay the game" and the "i';d be interested in an expansion
or history of this classic" markets.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"I'm gonna achieve immortality or die trying"
Gary Tait
>
> So, by your logic, I should be allowed to pirate CDs because I'm managing
> a "flakey" (relative term!) CD player.
One word MP3s.
Look at them either as away to backup music ,or redistributthem on the
net
(illegally though).
I see nothing wrong with procuring a computer file of intellectual
property,
if you have the legal right to do so, namely by posessing such ROMs,or
disks
(CD/floppy or otherwise).
You can get (buy or make) devices to dump rom images to a computer file.
--
Gary Tait,VE3VBF ; Homepage http://www.primeline.net/~tait
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that I use the Internet as a research / entertainment
tool ,and I shall not recieve Email regarding the purchase, trade
,or reccomendation of merchandise , services, or intellectual
property , unless I explicitly request such materials.
If you Email me and wish a reply, Please use your REAL address
with no spamblockers,etc.
Chris Cracknell
>I'm not really sure which side I'm on, but I think I should point out how
>hollow some of your points are:
>
>
>> day. A book you buy in 1980 is still good to read. But the Atari game
>> you bought in 1980 depends on you managing to maintain a flakey system.
>
>a "flakey" (relative term!) CD player.
Yes, but you'll always be able to buy a new CD Player at your local audio
electronics store. Where can you go to buy a brandnew Fairchild F or
2600 at a moments notice? The device that plays that particular media has
long since been discontinued. CD Players will be marketed probably for at
least another 15 years.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>Nope. A book, if put through the same abuse some of these systems have been
>through, will not be readable. The only "difference" is that abusing books is
>frowned upon, while with video games the abuse was more common.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
But even when your book is abused to the point of being unreadable, you can
always go to the bookstore and buy a new one. Where can you go to buy
new Fairchild and Arcadia games with such ease? You can't because they're
discontinued but the books are still in print.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>> So unless a reasonable distribution system is present, people need
>> to satiate this hungr via emulators.
>
>Or thrift stores...
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
But for those cursed by Mr. Friendly to live in dry thrifting grounds that's
not an option.
Add to this the fact tht software manufactures are pushing for legislation
to make it illegal to buy and sell used software means thrifting could
get very dry for all us classic collectors.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>________________________________________________________
>Thank you, U.S. Government, but I would rather have you
>protect me from nuclear war than Microsoft.
>________________________________________________________
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
I guess it's because it's much more realistic to expect the world to be
taken over by Microsoft than by the Russians. ;)
CRACKERS
(All hail Emperor Gates from hell!!)
(Don't blame me, I voted for Unix)
Dan Mazurowski
>
>
> Yes, but you'll always be able to buy a new CD Player
Kinda like I can still pick up a new 8-track deck?
>
> But even when your book is abused to the point of being unreadable, you can
> always go to the bookstore and buy a new one.
Unless it is out of print. For example, try picking up a copy of "Zap!
The Rise And Fall Of Atari" at your local Waldens.
The more I read these comments, the happier I am that I didn't follow my
life-long dream of becoming a game programmer. None of you guys seem to
think I would be entitled to holding a copyright on my own works, not to
mention earn a living from it! Just because the means of duplication and
distribution is easily available doesn't make it ethical. The high horse
of "emulation for preservation" is essentially a cop out. We are not
entitled to steal things we want just because it is too difficult for us
to obtain them legitimately.
Dan Mazurowski
>
> Why do you think JTS even bothered to buy
> Atari Corp. in the first place? The answer to all of the above is "it was for
> licences to Atari's classic video game library."
>
Off topic, I know, but I'm a stickler for these kind of details:
JTS did not buy Atari, Atari bought JTS. The acquisition has been dubbed
a reverse-takeover. Atari stock became JTS stock, while Atari Corp
became a subsidiary of JTS. JTS was interested in Atari's $50 million in
cash, and Atari was interested in not losing any more money in the
videogame market. JTS management stayed in place, and with the exception
of the Tramiels (and one caretaker) all of Atari's workforce was let go.
Pat McNeil
Chris Cracknell <ad...@james.hwcn.org> wrote in article
<73hjeh$k...@james.hwcn.org>...
>.
> Add to this the fact tht software manufactures are pushing for
legislation
> to make it illegal to buy and sell used software means thrifting could
> get very dry for all us classic collectors.
What the hell?! Are they nuts? Sure, software manufacturers have the same
legal rights as book publishers and record companies, but what the hell
gave them the idea they were entitled to more?
This is a really silly idea - it would suck if legislators in any country
would fall for something so idiotic. After all, I can clone my CD's and
cassettes and then resell the originals, and you don't hear RIAA whining
about the resale of CD's do you?
Pat McNeil
Chris Cracknell
>Chris Cracknell wrote in message <73g0cu$1...@james.hwcn.org>...
>>To be honest, as cool as these old games are, there's something kind of
>>sad about companies trying to rerelease them on a new platform.
>>
>>There's something about it that just reminds me of those musicians
>>who were one-hit wonders and then spend the rest of their pathetic
>>careers making cameos on cheesy sit-coms in a vane attempt to continue
>>to cash in on the success of their faded glory.
>
>Interesting thoughts.
>
>Though, I think the difference between one-hit wonders and commercial
>retrogaming is that if people don't buy the games, they go away. So, it can't
>happen without demand. By contrast, when a "one-hit wonder" appears on a
>sitcom, it could as easily be a product of nepotism as anything else.
Actually I think they appear on sitcoms as a result of poor writing.
Personally I would rather live and die in obscurity than one day be
on Hollywood Squares sitting next to Vanilla Ice.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>Anyway, it's not "vaguely, possibly, might be"... there have been four
>compilations in the Arcade's Greatest Hits line from Midway, and in this very
>thread people are asking if there'll be another. Well, what do you think?
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
I think that 4 classic compilations after all these years will mean that
by the time the video game I want to play are rereleased they'll already be
public domain anyways and I'll be one with Bira Bira at the Reef Store.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>Hasbro Interactive bought Atari Corp. and all its assets from its previous
>owner -- a hard drive manufacturer called JTS. Why do you think they did that?
>Do you really think that the hard drive manufacturer had some big title in
>development under the Atari name? Why do you think JTS even bothered to buy
>Atari Corp. in the first place? The answer to all of the above is "it was for
>licences to Atari's classic video game library."
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
The reason Jack merged JTS with Atari Corp was to make himself a lot of
money. At the time Atari Corp had about 90 million dollars. JTS was on the
verge of bankrupcy and wanted Atari's cash, not it's old video games.
Of course when the merger took place most of atari's cash was used to pay
bonuses to the executives at JTS and the CEO of JTS (Jack Tremiel) gave
himself a nice 45 million dollar bonus from Atari's coffers. The only
reason the SEC allowed the merger was because a condition of the merger
was that Atari was to continue operations. Atari itself was reduced to
a single person who answered the phones and said "Atari no longer supports
that product" and all development of Atari games was canned. When Jack
had plundered the Atari coffers for all the money they had what was left
over was sold to Hasbro for a piddly little 5 million (they could have
gotten more for it if they had put it up for auction on Ebay).
The SEC investigated (is still investigating?) the Hasbro purchase and
possible wrong doings on the part of JTS. Imagine being a person who
held stock in Atari a company at the time worth 90 million, then having
that company merged with JTS, then having that 90 million swallowed up
by the executives of JTS then to have your interests in Atari sold to
Hasbro for pocket change leaving you with nothing but stock in a
small time, floundering hard drive maker that will likely fail in a
few years time. I'd be pretty freaking pissed. (From what I understand
a number of investors have launched a class action suit).
JTS didn't care squat about Atari's intellectual properties. Atari was
just a cash salad for them to gobble up and the scraps were sold off
to Hasbro.
And speaking of the JTS scandel, does anyone know what's happening (happened)
with the SEC investigation of the JTS/Atari/Hasbro deal? Hope they finally
string Jack up by his dangly bits.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Case in point: I'm a casual Star Wars fan. I've been following the news of all
the hype, including the recent trailer debut on November 17th. Where I live,
it was going to premiere on the lead of Meet Joe Black. I knew this. Meet Joe
Black is not entirely my kind of movie, but thanks in part to the enthusiasm of
a co-worker, I was starting to think that *maybe* I'd go see Meet Joe Black in
order to see the trailer. Time was going on and I was starting to persuade
myself more and more... I decided that if a buddy of mine that was visiting
town that day was also interested, I'd go. Then I heard the news that it was
going to be on TV that very week (one of those entertainment magazine shows).
Well, that settled it. I decided I'd be happier not paying to see a movie I
wasn't sure about anyway, and would just watch the trailer on TV. Sure, it
wouldn't be as good without the THX and the big screen, but I decided I'd
rather sacrifice the full experience than go the "more pricy" route.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Be glad you waited for it on TV. It saved you the agony of sitting through
"Meet Joe Black". One critic wrote of it, "How long can you make a piece
of crap? According to this movie the answer is 3 hours."
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
I think this applies to a not-insignificant portion of the underground
emulation audience too.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
But how many of us are there to begin with? I would doubt there would be
more than 10 thousand classic videogame collectors in the entire world
but let's be extravigant and say there are 30 thousand of us. Let's also
say that 2/3 of them are interested in emulation, that's 20 thousand,
That's not much of a market for emulation software. And let's say again
that 2/3 of them are interested in buying commecial emulation packages
as they currently stand that's roughly 7 thousand people. That's not a very
big market when you consider how much there is to be made in more mainstreme
markets. So it's highly unlikely that the classic gaming market will
ever be given any serious attention unless there are ways found to incorporate
the classic gaming market into the mainstreme market. This means products like
Centipede 2K and the new Frogger where the classic version is thrown in as
a bonus. The people buying these products are doing so mainly for the
new version of the game. The included classic is just the icing on the
cake (wether or not they can get an emulated copy free elsewhere).
7 thousand people (or even 30 thousand) may sound like a big market. (Hell
I'd love to sell 7K copies of "Video Time Machine") but to a company that
concentrates its efforts on capturing a market of millions of buyers its
not worth the time or effort.
I do think the emulation crowd was wrong to go after current machines
like the Playstation and N64 and to a lesser extent the SNES and the
Genny, but I also think the software companies are wrong to take their
retaliation all the way to the 2600 and Colecovision emulators.
I think if they agreed to allow free access to discontinued products
that more emulator authors would respect their property rights on
current machines and not write emulators or archive their ROMs until they're
discontinued. The software companies are using a sledge hammer to drive
carpet tacks in my opinion.
CRACKERS
(Wrecking the hardwood flooring from hell!!)
Kirk Is
: Chris Cracknell wrote:
: >
: >
: > Yes, but you'll always be able to buy a new CD Player
: Kinda like I can still pick up a new 8-track deck?
No, but the music you want stands a good chance of being ported to
CD or tape. If not, you can do it yourself-- much like I encourage people
to do with videogames where the industry has dropped the ball in not
providing emulated versions.
: >
: > But even when your book is abused to the point of being unreadable, you can
: > always go to the bookstore and buy a new one.
: Unless it is out of print. For example, try picking up a copy of "Zap!
: The Rise And Fall Of Atari" at your local Waldens.
Again, I would have few qualms about some form of reproduction of a book
that's unlikely to be republished and available retail.
: The more I read these comments, the happier I am that I didn't follow my
: life-long dream of becoming a game programmer. None of you guys seem to
: think I would be entitled to holding a copyright on my own works, not to
: mention earn a living from it!
Hold a copyright? Yes, of course. Past the comercial lifespan of your
product? Possibly not.
But most of the bread and butter of a game programmer should be from the
work he/she does now, and originally. Few of the original programmers
hold these copyrights. Fewer still have any means of making money of them
years and years after the original release. For that *small* margin of
developers who stand to lose money because of some underground emulation,
who couldn't figure out how to release their product in a way that
appeals to peoplefrom beyond simple emulation, that's a small risk I'd be
willing to take for not having these games drop completely away.
: Just because the means of duplication and
: distribution is easily available doesn't make it ethical. The high horse
: of "emulation for preservation" is essentially a cop out. We are not
: entitled to steal things we want just because it is too difficult for us
: to obtain them legitimately.
No. This stuff deserves to be preserved as part of our pop legacy.
Few games get the benefit of someone actually interested enough to
remarket them. I don't see an uprising of old game developers pushing
to make a small amount of money on their original works. If I saw
anything like that, maybe your earlier comments about "making a living"
would have more force. But we're not talking about simple barenones
emus representing core profits for companies-- this is an issue of games
on the margin, that are at risk of falling off.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
I really do think that love is the best thing in the world, except for
cough drops. But I also have to say, for the umpty-umpth time, that life
isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.
--William Goldman, _The_Princess_Bride_
Jeff Vavasour
>Dan Mazurowski (sme...@gte.antispam.net) wrote:
>: Chris Cracknell wrote:
>: > Yes, but you'll always be able to buy a new CD Player
>
>: Kinda like I can still pick up a new 8-track deck?
>
>No, but the music you want stands a good chance of being ported to
>CD or tape. If not, you can do it yourself-- much like I encourage people
>to do with videogames where the industry has dropped the ball in not
>providing emulated versions.
The problem is that there are so many voices with varied opinions. I've lost
track of who, but someone else in this thread claimed that the justification
for MAME covering games in release on PC, PSX, Saturn, Super NES and Genesis
was that they weren't available on the Mac.
Here (and no offence to Mac users) the 8-track analogy is valid.
>But most of the bread and butter of a game programmer should be from the
>work he/she does now, and originally. Few of the original programmers
>hold these copyrights. Fewer still have any means of making money of them
>years and years after the original release. For that *small* margin of
>developers who stand to lose money because of some underground emulation,
>who couldn't figure out how to release their product in a way that
>appeals to peoplefrom beyond simple emulation, that's a small risk I'd be
>willing to take for not having these games drop completely away.
It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When is
someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
rights?
As I said in anther post, I *am* for copyright being of limited term and
requiring an active effort on the part of the holder to renew it, but I'm not
going to play by my own rules just because I think they make more sense. :-)
(That's because "making more sense" is subjective. Typically a person making
these alternate propositions for handling copyright state it so that he gets
what he wants, while the companies get what *he* thinks they *should* want.
That's where the reasoning breaks down.)
- Jeff
Kirk Is
: Kirk Is wrote in message <73jnub$2bq$2...@news3.tufts.edu>...
: >No, but the music you want stands a good chance of being ported to
: >CD or tape. If not, you can do it yourself-- much like I encourage people
: >to do with videogames where the industry has dropped the ball in not
: >providing emulated versions.
: The problem is that there are so many voices with varied opinions. I've lost
: track of who, but someone else in this thread claimed that the justification
: for MAME covering games in release on PC, PSX, Saturn, Super NES and Genesis
: was that they weren't available on the Mac.
: Here (and no offence to Mac users) the 8-track analogy is valid.
First off, I can't defend all hardcore emu supporters- next you'll have me
defending the worst of the K00L WAREZ!!1! bunch.
Second of all, I was thinking about the minor games that won't get
commercially ported to any new format, akin to 8-track music that is never
going to be touched by companies again. I don't think not being ported to
system X when system Y and Z are in ascendency is valid.
: >But most of the bread and butter of a game programmer should be from the
: >work he/she does now, and originally. Few of the original programmers
: >hold these copyrights. Fewer still have any means of making money of them
: >years and years after the original release. For that *small* margin of
: >developers who stand to lose money because of some underground emulation,
: >who couldn't figure out how to release their product in a way that
: >appeals to peoplefrom beyond simple emulation, that's a small risk I'd be
: >willing to take for not having these games drop completely away.
: It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
: money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When is
: someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
: rights?
When pieces of our pop culture are at serious risk of being lost.
I ask myself, what's worse, some companies having somewhat eroded markets
for certain genres of product, or entire games, these little microcosms,
being relegated to the dustbin of history?
: As I said in anther post, I *am* for copyright being of limited term and
: requiring an active effort on the part of the holder to renew it, but I'm not
: going to play by my own rules just because I think they make more sense. :-)
Let me guess. You never speed either.
Because speeders are not only lawbreakers, but they are in effect robbing
from us all by creating more pollution and raising insurance rates.
Similarly, anyone in Georgia up until a week ago who was having anal OR
oral sex should be appropriately convicted and sentenced.
: (That's because "making more sense" is subjective. Typically a person making
: these alternate propositions for handling copyright state it so that he gets
: what he wants, while the companies get what *he* thinks they *should* want.
: That's where the reasoning breaks down.)
Man, if this world were based on what companies wanted, what a pathetic
place it would be. Apparently, they don't like their fans at all. All
fanfic should have little (TM)s after every character's name, and all a
fansite should consist of is a link to The Mother Site (tm), with no
unauthorized graphic links or even original images that are clearly drawn
from the intellectual property of the show.
I feverently hope that the underground ROMs scene remains healthy and
strong, that when I need to see that fairly obscure Time Pilot sequel
again I can conduct a careful web search and get my grubby little paws on
it. I'd be happier if I could buy a reasonably priced legal emu of it,
but the chances of that seem pretty damn slim.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn" --Charlie Parker
Jeff Vavasour
>Second of all, I was thinking about the minor games that won't get
>commercially ported to any new format, akin to 8-track music that is never
>going to be touched by companies again.
But I bet you can't guess which ones are going to be revisited... :-)
That's why I brought up Bubbles and Splat! in another thread; but you know, if
I had to pick Namco's most likely 30 candidates, I don't think I would be able
to have matched Namco Museum's actual line-up too well at all.
>: It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
>: money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When
is
>: someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
>: rights?
>
>When pieces of our pop culture are at serious risk of being lost.
They're never lost due to collectors. They only go out of the public eye,
which is virtually the definition of what happens when things fade in
popularity.
>: As I said in anther post, I *am* for copyright being of limited term and
>: requiring an active effort on the part of the holder to renew it, but I'm
not
>: going to play by my own rules just because I think they make more sense. :-)
>
>Let me guess. You never speed either.
I take the bus.
>Similarly, anyone in Georgia up until a week ago who was having anal OR
>oral sex should be appropriately convicted and sentenced.
Yeah, but U.S. law is just weird, this is international law. :-) (That's a
joke!)
Seriously, I think the point here was that laws that make no sense to most
people are revised, and certainly, they aren't enforced. Just because there
are crazy laws doesn't mean all laws are crazy.
The copyright law doesn't suit you in this context, but it does suit others and
it does suit in *most* contexts. There are some people out there that actively
*want* their software to die, believe it or not. Point is, it's their right.
And it *should be* their right.
It is certainly not in the same category.
>: (That's because "making more sense" is subjective. Typically a person
making
>: these alternate propositions for handling copyright state it so that he gets
>: what he wants, while the companies get what *he* thinks they *should* want.
>: That's where the reasoning breaks down.)
>
>Man, if this world were based on what companies wanted, what a pathetic
>place it would be.
Don't take it to extremes. I didn't say the world should do what companies
want. I said companies should be allowed to protect their interests.
>Apparently, they don't like their fans at all. All
>fanfic should have little (TM)s after every character's name, and all a
>fansite should consist of is a link to The Mother Site (tm), with no
>unauthorized graphic links or even original images that are clearly drawn
>from the intellectual property of the show.
Presumably, the "they" you are thinking of is Paramount? Again, it's a bit
extreme to generalise this to the 10's of 1000's of corporations in the world.
(To get on a bit of a tangent, I always find it ironic how people can be overly
political correct in one arena, and then still gleefully carry stereotypes in
others, say like lawyers and corporations. Sometimes, it doesn't sound like
people have become that much more enlightened, but they've just found someone
else to pick on, and have made the language a little more unweildy while they
were at it.)
- Jeff
Kirk Is
Jeff Vavasour (je...@physics.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Kirk Is wrote in message <73ksl6$1hu$1...@news3.tufts.edu>...
: >Second of all, I was thinking about the minor games that won't get
: >commercially ported to any new format, akin to 8-track music that is never
: >going to be touched by companies again.
: But I bet you can't guess which ones are going to be revisited... :-)
True, but....
: That's why I brought up Bubbles and Splat! in another thread; but you know, if
: I had to pick Namco's most likely 30 candidates, I don't think I would be able
: to have matched Namco Museum's actual line-up too well at all.
....better safe than sorry when it comes to this stuff. Bubbles and Splat
are two minor games out of dozens and dozens and dozens. I'm not familiar
with all of the content of Namco (I've heard bits and pieces) but they're
not *that* numerous.
: They're never lost due to collectors. They only go out of the public eye,
: which is virtually the definition of what happens when things fade in
: popularity.
Carts wear down, arcade games get boards swapped, old systems become
flakey beyond use.
But more importantly, they're not seen by the people that they might
inspire. They have an intrinsic intellectual importance beyond their
collectability.
[snip speeding example]
: >Similarly, anyone in Georgia up until a week ago who was having anal OR
: >oral sex should be appropriately convicted and sentenced.
: Yeah, but U.S. law is just weird, this is international law. :-) (That's a
: joke!)
: Seriously, I think the point here was that laws that make no sense to most
: people are revised, and certainly, they aren't enforced. Just because there
: are crazy laws doesn't mean all laws are crazy.
No, but we're arguing that this law is. Even you think the law is out of
bounds. I'm just pointing out how some (i.e. many many) people react to
unreasonable laws.
: The copyright law doesn't suit you in this context, but it does suit others and
: it does suit in *most* contexts. There are some people out there that actively
: *want* their software to die, believe it or not. Point is, it's their right.
: And it *should be* their right.
I don't think it should be. Once you add something to our pop culture
heritage, it should be damn near impossible to extract it.
: It is certainly not in the same category.
I disagree.
: >: (That's because "making more sense" is subjective. Typically a person
: making
: >: these alternate propositions for handling copyright state it so that he gets
: >: what he wants, while the companies get what *he* thinks they *should* want.
: >: That's where the reasoning breaks down.)
: >
: >Man, if this world were based on what companies wanted, what a pathetic
: >place it would be.
: Don't take it to extremes. I didn't say the world should do what companies
: want.
That's why there's going to be this underground scene.
: I said companies should be allowed to protect their interests.
And the users are going to fight to protect theirs.
: >Apparently, they don't like their fans at all. All
: >fanfic should have little (TM)s after every character's name, and all a
: >fansite should consist of is a link to The Mother Site (tm), with no
: >unauthorized graphic links or even original images that are clearly drawn
: >from the intellectual property of the show.
: Presumably, the "they" you are thinking of is Paramount? Again, it's a bit
: extreme to generalise this to the 10's of 1000's of corporations in the world.
Paramount, Fox (Simpsons). They're just the more prominent ones; I see the
IDSA or ISDA or whatever the hell it is acting in a similar manner.
: (To get on a bit of a tangent, I always find it ironic how people can be overly
: political correct in one arena, and then still gleefully carry stereotypes in
: others, say like lawyers and corporations. Sometimes, it doesn't sound like
: people have become that much more enlightened, but they've just found someone
: else to pick on, and have made the language a little more unweildy while they
: were at it.)
Yeah, the other day in the men's room I found
"The only good lawer/politician is a dead one"
Now either he's refering to the breed of lawyer-politician that fills our
offices (ala the Clintons, which I actually doubt) or he's TOO DAMN LAME
TOO MAKE A JOB RELEVANT SPECIFIC JOKE. I followed up his graffitti with
my own:
/\ Now , with Create-A-Joke, you can make
|| hundreds of jokes JUST LIKE THIS
On the other hand, it's also important to recognize that companies have a
duty to their stockholders, not to the public at large.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"Tough times make monkeys eat red peppers." --Frank Costello
WShrake
> The copyright law doesn't suit you in this
> context, but it does suit others and it does
> suit in *most* contexts. There are some
> people out there that actively *want* their
> software to die, believe it or not. Point is,
> it's their right. And it *should be* their right.
That depends greatly on how you define "die". If by that word you mean that
someone who owns the rights to something has a right to keep it from being sold
commercially in a future tense, then I have to agree with you. They have the
right not to sell something they own.
But if by "die" you mean that some entity that owns the rights to something
that was once produced and distributed commercially wants to delete any and all
cultural or historical references to that item, I would have to strongly argue
that they do not in fact have that right.
They never did, nor should they. The fact that they control the commercial
rights to something does not mean that they can rewrite history to suit their
whims.
Think about it; how can a law intended to protect something be used as
justification for destroying that same thing? It can't be done, without a lot
of double-standards any hypocrisy. Which Mr. Vavasour says he opposes..
My arguments in this matter are simple. The US copyright laws were never
intended to create an absolute monopoly over a creative work. In fact, "Fair
Use" defines certain areas where the right holders had NO control (or at best
very limited control) over how things were going to be used, outside commercial
boundaries.
Libraries, museums, scholarly uses; these things the right holders
automatically gave up under the original intent of US copyright law. I would
argue that if you've ever intended to have the government "protect" your
creative rights to an item, you have also given up certain rights down the
road. It is all part of the trade off; the government helps creators benefit
from their creations, only because they see the public will benefit if people
are encouraged to make and distribute creative works.
I argue here that the original intent of US copyright laws was to help BOTH the
creative forces and those likely to consume their works on a commercial level.
While the creator was alive, his/her works were protected; this was intended to
encourage people to create things and distribute them. At the same time,
scholarly and public benefit uses were encouraged, and were also protected.
This is not really my opinion; it is more a paraphrasing of how the Library of
Congress describes copyright law.
This is where I point out what Mr. Vavasour already has; when a law does not
suit one side of an argument, it does not necessarily follow that those people
can simply ignore the parts of the law that they do not like.
That goes for people who have purchased the legal rights to creative works, as
well as for consumers. It would be hypocritical, as he points out, any other
way.
Again, I wish to point out that I mean Mr. Vavasour and the industry no
disrespect. I am pleased that he is taking the time to argue from the point of
view of the rights holders. I enjoy hearing his thoughts on these matters. I
like this industry a great deal, power struggles and all.
But I would stress that Jeff's argument above may be dangerously close to
making the opposite of the point it appears he wants to make. If he goes so far
as to say that a rights holder should be able to in effect try to alter history
by deleting references to something that did in fact happen, that is a strong
argument in favor of the second half of the originally intended copyright life
cycle; that the creative work be put into the public domain, or that at least
the laws cease to be enforced in regards to that one property . "If it is of no
value to you, give it to us" ....and I can see from his posts that he's not
fond of that argument.
I do understand that some people may be embarrassed at earlier works they did.
But that is not a legal issue, but a creative one. If it was produced,
advertised, sold, and all the time legally protected, I'd argue that there are
no rights to delete it from history at a later date, despite the creator's
later embarrassment. A plea to keep it under wraps, voluntarily, I could agree
with on moral grounds. In fact, I've seen exactly this situation in my travels
as a Vic20 "Digital Archaeologist" and game historian. I'm neither surprised
nor offended when this is the case.
It may be a moral matter; I'd grant that easily. However, even that leads us to
another thorny issue... let's say the programmer of some game is now
embarrassed to have anyone see what they wrote decades ago. Say they want that
software to "die". Say they also did that creation as a "work for hire". In
this case the true creator of the item wants it to die. Should a company who
owns the commercial rights to that item then be forced to comply with that
person's desires? I'm sure it is happening all around us, and has been for
years. I'm sure that in this situation, the copyright owner would argue
strongly that they had a right to make sure it did not "die". Why? Because
maybe they can profit from it. Does that make their wants any more "right" than
the actual creators "rights"?
Morally speaking, I find it hard to buy the argument that the actual creator
gave up his rights when he sold them to some distributor on a "work for hire"
basis, but that when the distributor no longer has any visible interest in the
product, that they should be allowed to "kill" that creation. Morally speaking,
what makes them so special that they can ignore what everyone wants except
themselves? If selfishness is "bad" for the public, why not industry?
Everyone involved sees this stuff as "theirs". At some point, that whole
process degrades down to an argument that nobody's rights matter, so long as a
person has it within their power to use force to get what they want. I argue
that we either all respect each other's position and try to find some common
ground we can agree on, or the entire "rights" argument is equally moot on all
sides.
The rights holders may WANT complete and total control over every single
possible use of "their" works. The public may WANT complete and total control
over the use of those same creative works. Ditto for the people who made
creative works under "work for hire" agreements they later regretted. Ditto for
historians, archivists, preservationists, museum owners, arcade owners, and
everyone else involved in this debate.
Copyright law has always intended for both the public and creative forces to
benefit from a mutually beneficial relationship. That's the reason these laws
were created; to strike a balance between the needs and wants of all the
parties involved, so that everyone is happy and continues to either create or
consume. And remember, that's pretty much the way the Library of Congress
describes the whole copyright process, not my personal opinion on this.
The sooner we get to the part where "we all get along." the happier I'll be.
'Nuff said....
Ward Shrake
Jeff Vavasour
>Think about it; how can a law intended to protect something be used as
>justification for destroying that same thing? It can't be done, without a lot
>of double-standards any hypocrisy. Which Mr. Vavasour says he opposes..
"Destroying" is overstatement.
I mean simply, that until something legitimately goes into the public domain,
others than the copyright holder have no right to "manufacture" replacements.
*Public* electronic ROM archives may not have raw materials, but they are
manufactured duplicates, much as electronic versions of copyrighted books would
be.
It's the elimination of the need for raw materials (a medium) that's made this
grow out of control. MP3 is a similar situation.
>My arguments in this matter are simple. The US copyright laws were never
>intended to create an absolute monopoly over a creative work. In fact, "Fair
>Use" defines certain areas where the right holders had NO control (or at best
>very limited control) over how things were going to be used, outside
commercial
>boundaries.
Academic use, use for the purposes of review, use for the purposes of satire.
Of course, Siskel & Ebert couldn't show A Bug's Life in its entirety and then
pass a review on it. Nor could Next Gen review Tomb Raider and post the
complete binary in an accompanying download for reference.
Academic use is an interesting angle. You'd certainly give a few lawyers
headaches trying to defend that one, but I'm no lawyer so I couldn't reliably
speculate how far you'd get with it.
I think it's a matter of apparent intent, however. As has been discussed
elsewhere: it definitely not simply an act of preseration, because preservation
doesn't require the extreme of public-domain-like distribution.
>At the same time,
>scholarly and public benefit uses were encouraged, and were also protected.
>This is not really my opinion; it is more a paraphrasing of how the Library of
>Congress describes copyright law.
>
>This is where I point out what Mr. Vavasour already has; when a law does not
>suit one side of an argument, it does not necessarily follow that those people
>can simply ignore the parts of the law that they do not like.
It really does seem to be a leap of logic to consider the current activity of
unauthorised highly public distribution is "scholarly use". Private collection
and public organisations like Videotopia are more in the vein of scholarly use.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
>: They're never lost due to collectors. They only go out of the public eye,
>: which is virtually the definition of what happens when things fade in
>: popularity.
>
>Carts wear down, arcade games get boards swapped, old systems become
>flakey beyond use.
Private measures of preservation are much different. That's where that whole
"for backup purposes" argument actually becomes legitimate. Instead, that
argument is being used as some obtuse, half-hearted justification for
public-domain-like mass distribution.
>But more importantly, they're not seen by the people that they might
>inspire. They have an intrinsic intellectual importance beyond their
>collectability.
Gone With The Wind inspires. Humphrey Bogart inspires. Star Wars inspires.
That doesn't give anyone justification to distribute them for free. To have
access to them, maybe, but again Internet-based public-domain-like distribution
is overkill. Anyone seeking inspiration from these things can go to
collectors' swap-meets or Videotopia.
>: Seriously, I think the point here was that laws that make no sense to most
>: people are revised, and certainly, they aren't enforced. Just because there
>: are crazy laws doesn't mean all laws are crazy.
>
>No, but we're arguing that this law is.
Right. I was just pointing out that bringing up Georgia's crazy laws
concerning sex doesn't *change* the validity (or lack thereof) of other laws.
There is no way that the shortcomings of copyright law even approach that
example, at any rate.
>Even you think the law is out of
>bounds. I'm just pointing out how some (i.e. many many) people react to
>unreasonable laws.
I believe that there is latitude for revision, but I do not believe the
copyright law is so fundamentally flawed as others seem to. And, more than
anything, I'm pointing out that the proposed revisions to the law, as well as
the proposed compromises for the industry, tend to be short-sighted: the revise
the law to suit all of the orphanware advocates' needs, but take little care to
preserve some the owners' intrinsic rights.
In other words, the law may indeed be somewhat flawed, but the proposed
"solutions" are at least equally flawed, just in a different way. To me,
that's no solution.
Actually, speaking of proposed compromises, they haven't really been. It's not
that it's been proposed and turned down nearly so much as it's been simply been
rhetoric in this newsgroup. The last time this came up, my argument was,
"well, why don't you ask permission?" to which the general response was "why
bother, they would just tell us `no'." So, to me, this says something. (a)
virtually nobody is willing to put in a legitimate effort for this "cause" and
(b) it isn't about neglect because they would defy even the *active* request of
a copyright owner not to do it.
Ok, the form letter to the IDSA is at least a slight improvement of the old
situation, but it was a reaction after the damage was done. They should have
asked permission first, IMHO.
>: The copyright law doesn't suit you in this context, but it does suit others
and
>: it does suit in *most* contexts. There are some people out there that
actively
>: *want* their software to die, believe it or not. Point is, it's their
right.
>: And it *should be* their right.
>
>I don't think it should be. Once you add something to our pop culture
>heritage, it should be damn near impossible to extract it.
Ok, that's two people who've called me on that in short order. Poor phrasing
there, I guess. By "die" I mean cease further duplication and distribution of
those duplicates.
Here's my reasoning, if you care to know:
At the peak of any creative work's popularity the industry is motivated to
satisfy the full demand. Therefore enough duplicates are made to do so. After
that, popularity wanes. For those whose interest continues, there is now an
excess. This is where collectors start cruising garage sales and auctions
gathering up the stuff, often more than one copy of each. The multiple copies
provide the collector an insurance against further degradation of the work (be
it hardware or software). The collector may also take time to study the work,
in order to determine better ways of preserving it. Personal backups for that
purpose should suit fine.
All the above is permitted under current copyright law.
By contrast, the public, mass-distribution of duplicates on the Internet is the
"lazy-man's collection". And for *this* people are calling for copyright
reform. (Don't use the "but it also takes up less space argument". A
collector can privately take the same measures with his own collection.)
It seems to me that the honourable cause of preservation for the higher good
doesn't need such reform to carry on.
>On the other hand, it's also important to recognize that companies have a
>duty to their stockholders, not to the public at large.
Which is the interest I was suggesting that they should be allowed to protect.
As bad as it got, how much would Atari Corp.'s assets have been worth if their
entire library was in the public domain or else in some equivalent free
distribution?
- Jeff
WShrake
> It really does seem to be a leap of logic to
> consider the current activity of
> unauthorised highly public distribution is
> "scholarly use". Private collection
>and public organisations like Videotopia are
> more in the vein of scholarly use.
You are most correct; it is a leap of logic. One I cannot agree with and one I
did not make.
I wish to point out here, for the record, that I have attempted to make a clear
seperation between what I've said in my previous posts and what other people
may be saying in this same forum.
In other words, I'm probably a bit off-topic, given the subject line above, so
please try to assume as little as possible about my desires. I understand it is
difficult seperating the people who are using an argument from those who really
mean it. I can only stand on my record.
> Academic use is an interesting angle. You'd
> certainly give a few lawyers headaches
> trying to defend that one, but I'm no lawyer
> so I couldn't reliably speculate how far
> you'd get with it.
I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks! ;-)
Really, I'm not trying to give anyone headaches. I just had some comments that
other people didn't seem to be making, so I tossed in my two cents. Or monkey
wrench perhaps? But it is a public discussion, so....
Again, I'm only involved in the periphery of this debate, in a sense, since I
am not giving any opinions on the main subject of whether or not it is legally
or morally right to do things like MAME did. I'm neither condemning nor
condoning that sort of thing. I'm staying nuetral on that particular issue, or
trying to.
Then again, maybe I'm right on topic, since one oft-used argument in defense of
public distribution of things like old ROM images is the whole subject of
legitimate preservation.
Having given it a bit more thought since yesterday's big post, I think I have a
better idea of specific ways to achieve my ideas.
I had suggested the industry set up some sort of central group to receive
things like ROM images from guys like me, who want this stuff to be around 100
years from now. I figured the industry wouldn't want to do it, but could think
of nothing else that would suffice.
It occurs to me that -- in a sense -- it already exists. Why reinvent the
wheel? Things like the Smithsonian Institution already have missions along
preservation lines. Videotopia was previously mentioned in a positive way.
Mr. Vavasour has correctly said before that "collectors" have the desire to
preserve things. But he is putting the entire burden for these efforts on
people that most likely can't sustain the burden. Yes, we may have the desire.
But that desire needs to be backed up with more resources than we private
"collectors" have at our disposal. At the same time, the industry has the
resources but not the desire.
When I said the industry should perhaps foot the bill for this sort of thing,
it was mostly due to the fact that we preservationists don't have the resources
to handle the responsibility. The industry has more money and power than we
individuals do, was my first thought.
But thinking this through again from a "public organisation" perspective, it
seems more do-able all around, with almost no changes from present
circumstances for either side.
What would keep the industry as a whole from setting down rules that allow
hobbyists such as myself to send things like ROM images to that sort of an
institution? And allowing such institutions to accept them, without fear of
getting into legal trouble?
What about saying that it would be a legitimate defense for a person to keep
the standard and accepted amount of back-up copies of something, if they have a
receipt from a recognized museum showing they donated the original? It would be
a singular exception, not the rule. Seems to be win-win to me?
That is something that is clear; you either donated an item to a legitimate
museum, or you did not. That should not cause any legal headaches over language
or exceptions, etc, etc. You either have a receipt, or you don't.
Collectors do love the originals, as Mr. Vavasour has pointed out. But these
items will stay in their private collections unless they have some reason to
part with them. They aren't likely to want to give them up if they collect
them. And museums aren't likely to want copies, either, both because that goes
against their stated purpose of preserving a bit of history, and due to the
copyright threats they currently feel they'd be under.
Keep in mind that due to my own personal tastes and experiences, I'm talking
about stuff like VIC-20 cartridges or Emerson Arcadia 2001 ROM images, not
NeoGeo ROMs. I'm talking about stuff no one really cares about at the moment,
in a commercial sense, other than their legitimate desire not to forfeit their
ownership rights or future marketing.
Stuff like current arcade games could find their way down there after their
commercial lifetimes were in decline. Preservation would not apply to things
still making money for their parent companies. Such things would not
legitimately be "history" right away anyway, so they'd not fall under this
heading at all. But there definitely are other areas in danger of not being
around in a hundred years, if in ten. That's my focus. I realize the
definitions will take time to refine, but we are all going to have to deal with
that sooner or later in any case. Why not now, without legal expenses?
From where I sit, I sounds like it would be a simple matter of written
permission. It would sort of be extending the "Fair Use" doctrine, but in a
sense, not even really doing that.
What I'm thinking of is the industry talking among themselves, and drafting up
letters to "public organizations" saying that as long as those organizations
are doing legitimate archiving work, that they would not be likely to sue them
for doing things like accepting ROM images of old games. As it stands, most of
these organizations are afraid of the wrath of the industry, so they won't
accept much. They rely on donations rather than the ability to buy things from
the public, so immediately there is a seemingly insurmountable problem.
It would not cost the industry much at all, it would be doing the public a big
favor, it would show that the industry does in fact care about these old
properties.... I see a lot of advantages, and no overwhelming loss or other
hassles for the software industry. Heck, I'm sure there are even tax breaks
involved in here somewhere, for donations and such?
And as I've already pointed out, there would be less grey area to fight over if
there were commonly known, widely-supported ways to insure that this stuff does
not disappear forever. I'd rather see the industry spending time packaging and
distributing this stuff, rather than in fighting over decades-old, unresolved
moral issues.
Any comments?
Ward Shrake
Jeff Vavasour
>Collectors do love the originals, as Mr. Vavasour has pointed out. But these
>items will stay in their private collections unless they have some reason to
>part with them. They aren't likely to want to give them up if they collect
>them. And museums aren't likely to want copies, either, both because that goes
>against their stated purpose of preserving a bit of history, and due to the
>copyright threats they currently feel they'd be under.
Well, this is running under the assumption that there aren't enough copies to
go around for those that remain interested. Generally, this is not true. Many
collectors have multiple copies of items, in fact. It's only the rare
prototypes that are the exceptions. Setting aside for the moment the issue of
whether a "smuggled-out" prototype is legal to posess, even collectors are
hesitant to allow such prototypes into public duplication, because they
diminish the item's value as a collectable. To me, this seems remarkably
similar to companies wishing to "hoard" their games on the premise that they
may one day again be valuable as a corporate asset.
>From where I sit, I sounds like it would be a simple matter of written
>permission.
Agreed, but that's what ticked me off in the first place. People started doing
this without even attempting to get written permission, and when I asked in the
public forum why they chose to ignore that courtesy, the answer was "because
they'd only say `no' if we asked."
It's funny that no-one has brought it up this time (maybe they've forgotten)
but in an effort to prove me the hypocrite before people have reminded me that
I have a few emulators of the TRS-80 in free distribution. The thing is, I
spoke to the appropriate people at Tandy about this to get their blessing. I
even attempted to get permission to distribute the ROM with it. Unfortunately
they found the issue too nebulous, but did approve of my use of ROM transfer by
cable connection to an original machine.
This, to me, is an act of preservation. You've got the original machine, and
the emulator and the do-it-yourself cable provide you with a way of preserving
it in a new environment.
The community used to respect the arrangement too. ROMs and software didn't
turn up on the Internet *until* after the video game archives got so brazen.
Then these others started to follow suit.
Before this, there was one individual who started indiscriminantly distributing
"orphanware" for the TRS-80 Colour Computer. That individual was crticised by
nearly the entire online CoCo community, which was made up almost exclusively
of users and hobbiest with very little "corporate presence". (The only real
"corporate presence" anyway was a few one-man software publisher operations.)
This is the background I come from.
Here and there I mention that I once worked on a prototype Atari 2600 emulator
back in the "it couldn't be done" days. I was contemplating a fair way that it
could be released, and using the cable-transfer method as precedent, decided
that the way to go would be an easy-to-build parallel port cartridge interface.
I built a prototype of it, and decided in rare foresight, that it wasn't easy
*enough* to build and there'd just end up being people who would read the
images off using the thing and stick them up on the web for people who didn't
build it but allegedly had the cartridges. Once that happened, I thought, what
would stop anyone from downloading them? So, there was a time I was teetering
on causing this exact phenomenon of which I disapprove.
So, I still believe in acts of preservation. I just find it offensive that
people are trying to pass off the indiscriminant distribution of these games as
preservation.
(Incidentally, I didn't immediately give up on the Atari 2600 emulator when I
realised what could happen. I instead started contemplating other ways I might
be able to accomplish the legitimate preservation of the legacy, which, with
the help of a fellow enthusiast on the 'net, is how I came in contact with
Atari Corp. and Activision. Activision, at the time, was just gearing up for
their Action Pack, but wanted a Windows-based package and I had a DOS-based
package. I didn't believe that it could be done well as a Windows product and
so was too stubborn about it, and so lost the opportunity. By some miracle,
though, six months later Digital Eclipse approached me to work on Williams
Arcade Classics. I should ask my boss if I would've gotten the opportunity if
I'd been one of those guys who didn't play by the rules...)
- Jeff
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>This is a really silly idea - it would suck if legislators in any country
>would fall for something so idiotic. After all, I can clone my CD's and
>cassettes and then resell the originals, and you don't hear RIAA whining
>about the resale of CD's do you?
The record industry was responsible for the failure of DAT in the
consumer marketplace, in part by putting the generation lockout in DAT
machines to avoid copies of copies of copies.
Of course, nothing is stopping people from doing audio extraction of
their CDs and making CDR duplicates, but this is years later.
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>Instead of making all this fuss over these old games that are no longer
>marketed why don't they put that energy into creating new games.
For one thing, it costs a lot less to rerelease an old title than it
does to develop a new title. Even "2000" upgraded versions of old
titles may cost millions to develop.
Secondly, creating new titles that are in the style of the old games
is a risky venture. I wish it could happen, but there are
psychological implications against doing so.
There was a recent article in one of the mags about the "death of 2D".
We are so "late" in the evolution of videogames that game development
seems to be exclusively in the 3D domain, regardless of bit depth and
sprite counts, 2D is "out" other than for unusual exceptions (Abe's
Odyssey).
The psychological implication is that when doing a new game, you must
have it take full advantage of the newest, most advanced portion of
your platform's archetecture, i.e. 3D polygons.
Of course, that's part of why development budgets are going through
the roof, and yes this will ultimately create an unwinnable situation
for the game companies, but for now, they are all chasing technology.
When you re-release an old title, nobody is going to really complain
about the graphics just as nobody complains about the special effects
when they go to see Wizard of Oz in the theaters. They enjoy the
craftsmanship within its historical context.
At some point people will have to re-evalutate where games are headed
and decide whether it's just always getting better and better or
whether they arein fact giving up entire genres of very enjoyable
games just for the sake of new technology...
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>I almost wish that if it was such a marginal decision, they'd just cut
>their losses and let the underground have its way.
You don't understand that the people who are behind most of these
emulation packages (Activision excluded) really are in it for similar
reasons as myself or other classic enthusiasts. That's why it pains
me to see this as a struggle between both parties, and it really seems
to indicate that a great number of classic gamers are in it because it
is free rather than for the sake of preserving history, otherwise they
would be more sympathetic and supportive.
When you are releasing a commercial package, you have the resources to
present a nice piece of digital history. Although there is history in
and around the internet in little pockets, the current emulation
methods eschew all the artwork, manuals, history, etc... in favor of a
vanilla ROM loader and config screen.
Therefore, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would much
rather have a commercial company put something nice together than to
"let the underground have its way."
>fringes of collectordom for years and years until emulation came back, and
>too many depend on underground emus to still live on.
They don't really depend on the emus per se, they just depend on the
ROMs and other materials being archived and put into a safe place.
The emulation can come at any later date through official means.
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>But how many of us are there to begin with? I would doubt there would be
>more than 10 thousand classic videogame collectors in the entire world
>but let's be extravigant and say there are 30 thousand of us. Let's also
>say that 2/3 of them are interested in emulation, that's 20 thousand,
>That's not much of a market for emulation software. And let's say again
>that 2/3 of them are interested in buying commecial emulation packages
The most recent PC compilation of the 2600 Action pack sold in excess
of 100,000 copies!!!
I heard through the grapevine that the PSX arcade emu titles sell at
the average rate of 40-60K units a piece.
(don't ask for my sources, I know I'm accurate)
Namco's reissue of two of its volumes would indicate sales in excess
of that figure.
Sure, the DIE HARD collector market is small, but there is a larger
market of older gameplayers who miss the classics.
Glenn Saunders
>It would not cost the industry much at all, it would be doing the public a big
>favor, it would show that the industry does in fact care about these old
>properties.... I see a lot of advantages, and no overwhelming loss or other
>hassles for the software industry. Heck, I'm sure there are even tax breaks
>involved in here somewhere, for donations and such?
I like the idea a lot.
Right now there are a lot of individual collectors who are trying to
do the work that these companies should be doing in-house to preserve
their own history.
By being separate, you have a lot of duplicated effort and varying
degrees of quality in the archiving.
For instance, archiving the ROM but not scanning the artwork and
transcribing the manuals is a biggie.
I think the best thing that could happen would be to start a central
repository of some kind, sanctioned by the entire industry, and have
someone (or small group of people) manage over an ever-increasing
digital archive of ROM images, source code, hardware schematics,
photos, and art scans. Should space permit, physicial copies of the
originals could be stored, but that's asking a lot.
This way, when certain collections reach a level of relative
completeness, truly massive compilation CDs could be released
(probably requiring DVD) and royalties paid to the rights-holders.
On the web there could be a massive database that lists the games
known to exist, and all the various categories listed for what the
museum has on hand and in what state it's in.
That way all the collectors out there can figure out what to submit.
To protect the industry, you could implement a minimum 10 year age
limit on "inductees" kinda like how the baseball hall of fame only
inducts people who are out of the game for a given period of time.
That way "industry secrets" in the source code would no longer be an
issue and the platform will most likely not be in active development.
D. Brady
(Glenn Saunders) wrote:
> That's why it pains
> me to see this as a struggle between both parties, and it really seems
> to indicate that a great number of classic gamers are in it because it
> is free
Do you really think it is as simple as getting *free* stuff?
You certainly aren't speaking for me. I'll wager that most of the people
posting in this group would agree.
> rather than for the sake of preserving history, otherwise they
> would be more sympathetic and supportive.
Ah yes. I'll to be a bit more 'sympathetic and supportive' once I see
'Exidy Arcade Classics' on any platform.
Until then, I'll buy emulation packages when I see them - but I won't hold
my breath waiting for an arcade perfect version of Space Firebird....
--
== To reply - remove the reversed 'no spam' from ==
== my e-mail address. Sorry about that! ==
Dan Mazurowski
>
> Until then, I'll buy emulation packages when I see them - but I won't hold
> my breath waiting for an arcade perfect version of Space Firebird....
>
So why don't you just buy the arcade machine? There are many auctions
all over the country each year, the game you want is bound to turn up
eventually. Or are you opposed to paying $300 to $1000 for a full sized
cabinet? If you aren't willing to make that kind of sacrifice then maybe
you don't want it as badly as you thought. Why should you be entitled to
download something for free, especially when you aren't willing to pay
market value for the real thing?
Kirk Is
: Kirk Is wrote in message <73m65f$ck2$2...@news3.tufts.edu>...
: >But more importantly, they're not seen by the people that they might
: >inspire. They have an intrinsic intellectual importance beyond their
: >collectability.
: Gone With The Wind inspires. Humphrey Bogart inspires. Star Wars inspires.
: That doesn't give anyone justification to distribute them for free. To have
: access to them, maybe, but again Internet-based public-domain-like distribution
: is overkill. Anyone seeking inspiration from these things can go to
: collectors' swap-meets or Videotopia.
Well, those are bad examples, because they all have legitimate retail
distribution channels.
Collector's swaps have a small selection. Videotopia has the same
problem. It doesn't get to the masses.
: Right. I was just pointing out that bringing up Georgia's crazy laws
: concerning sex doesn't *change* the validity (or lack thereof) of other laws.
: There is no way that the shortcomings of copyright law even approach that
: example, at any rate.
Yeah, but my point was law != morality.
And your second point is debtable.
: I believe that there is latitude for revision, but I do not believe the
: copyright law is so fundamentally flawed as others seem to. And, more than
: anything, I'm pointing out that the proposed revisions to the law, as well as
: the proposed compromises for the industry, tend to be short-sighted: the revise
: the law to suit all of the orphanware advocates' needs, but take little care to
: preserve some the owners' intrinsic rights.
Yes, but the grey area is where the owners don't care about their rights,
gain nothing from them, whereas trampling them can do a lot of good. It's
which side you err on that the conversation is about.
: Actually, speaking of proposed compromises, they haven't really been. It's not
: that it's been proposed and turned down nearly so much as it's been simply been
: rhetoric in this newsgroup. The last time this came up, my argument was,
: "well, why don't you ask permission?" to which the general response was "why
: bother, they would just tell us `no'." So, to me, this says something. (a)
: virtually nobody is willing to put in a legitimate effort for this "cause" and
: (b) it isn't about neglect because they would defy even the *active* request of
: a copyright owner not to do it.
Well part of the trouble is the number of different sources you'd need to
get permission from. It's the all-in-one nature of ROM repositories that
appeals. You want people to go through a lot of effort to no reward other
than legitimacy. and risks that their bring more of a crackdown on
themselves.
: >I don't think it should be. Once you add something to our pop culture
: >heritage, it should be damn near impossible to extract it.
: Ok, that's two people who've called me on that in short order. Poor phrasing
: there, I guess. By "die" I mean cease further duplication and distribution of
: those duplicates.
But that would be taking it out of the pop-culture heritage, which I'm
against.
: Here's my reasoning, if you care to know:
: At the peak of any creative work's popularity the industry is motivated to
: satisfy the full demand. Therefore enough duplicates are made to do so. After
: that, popularity wanes. For those whose interest continues, there is now an
: excess. This is where collectors start cruising garage sales and auctions
: gathering up the stuff, often more than one copy of each. The multiple copies
: provide the collector an insurance against further degradation of the work (be
: it hardware or software). The collector may also take time to study the work,
: in order to determine better ways of preserving it. Personal backups for that
: purpose should suit fine.
: All the above is permitted under current copyright law.
: By contrast, the public, mass-distribution of duplicates on the Internet is the
: "lazy-man's collection". And for *this* people are calling for copyright
: reform. (Don't use the "but it also takes up less space argument". A
: collector can privately take the same measures with his own collection.)
: It seems to me that the honourable cause of preservation for the higher good
: doesn't need such reform to carry on.
I see your point but don't feel that an antique-like collector's market is
a sufficient means of distribution for the intellectual heritage of this
stuff.
: >On the other hand, it's also important to recognize that companies have a
: >duty to their stockholders, not to the public at large.
: Which is the interest I was suggesting that they should be allowed to protect.
: As bad as it got, how much would Atari Corp.'s assets have been worth if their
: entire library was in the public domain or else in some equivalent free
: distribution?
Heh. You have a terrific knack for choosing *terrible* examples. Given
what the people who sold off Atari *did* to Atari as a creative force,
it's pretty easy to see the sell off as yet another example of
parasitism...
And as another one of those lame proposals you hate, if they were released
to the public domain under the condition that it not be commercially
rereleased, the assets would have the vast majority of their value.
Commercial and official has a lot of influece.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"I like frogs, and their outlook, and the way they get together in
wet places on warm nights and sing about sex."
--overheard at the New England Aquarium
Kirk Is
: On 25 Nov 1998 21:48:28 GMT, kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is)
: wrote:
: >I almost wish that if it was such a marginal decision, they'd just cut
: >their losses and let the underground have its way.
: You don't understand that the people who are behind most of these
: emulation packages (Activision excluded) really are in it for similar
: reasons as myself or other classic enthusiasts. That's why it pains
: me to see this as a struggle between both parties, and it really seems
: to indicate that a great number of classic gamers are in it because it
: is free rather than for the sake of preserving history, otherwise they
: would be more sympathetic and supportive.
Yes, but since the underground scene is so much more viable than the slow
commercial process, will be even if the scene is pushed further
underground, seems that their motives are more fundamental--
"Games" vs. "Games, legality, and maybe some profit"
: When you are releasing a commercial package, you have the resources to
: present a nice piece of digital history. Although there is history in
: and around the internet in little pockets, the current emulation
: methods eschew all the artwork, manuals, history, etc... in favor of a
: vanilla ROM loader and config screen.
If the history were that much better, people will buy it.
: Therefore, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would much
: rather have a commercial company put something nice together than to
: "let the underground have its way."
Not me.
Then again, I always think the fundamental inforamtion is much more
important than the trappings. A lot of people get into the sensuality of
books, for instance-- the feel of the paper, the choice of font, the cover
art, etc etc. Same with video games-- collectors like the carts, the look
of a NTSC screen, etc. Not me, though. It's the little microcosm created
that gets me.
: >fringes of collectordom for years and years until emulation came back, and
: >too many depend on underground emus to still live on.
: They don't really depend on the emus per se, they just depend on the
: ROMs and other materials being archived and put into a safe place.
: The emulation can come at any later date through official means.
But it MIGHT NOT IN AREASONABLE TIME. Time Pilot 2084, I'd never hope to
see that in commercial rerelease. But I can play it on MAME.
Jon Kade
Saunders) became just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>On 25 Nov 1998 21:48:28 GMT, kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is)
>wrote:
>>I almost wish that if it was such a marginal decision, they'd just cut
>>their losses and let the underground have its way.
>
>You don't understand that the people who are behind most of these
>emulation packages (Activision excluded) really are in it for similar
>reasons as myself or other classic enthusiasts. That's why it pains
>me to see this as a struggle between both parties, and it really seems
>to indicate that a great number of classic gamers are in it because it
>is free rather than for the sake of preserving history, otherwise they
>would be more sympathetic and supportive.
Yep, we buy Vectrexes because they're free. We buy 2600 carts because
they're free. We spend time and money working on our real life
collections because it's all free. Wanna rephrase that, Glenn?
>When you are releasing a commercial package, you have the resources to
>present a nice piece of digital history. Although there is history in
>and around the internet in little pockets, the current emulation
>methods eschew all the artwork, manuals, history, etc... in favor of a
>vanilla ROM loader and config screen.
Which is why I like the first two AGH discs better than the second
two. PLEASE let's have interviews in the next ones, Jeff =)
And can you put some info about the games in the Color Game Boy games?
I know, it would be a little hard to do, but...
>Therefore, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would much
>rather have a commercial company put something nice together than to
>"let the underground have its way."
As would I, but even Digital Eclipse isn't doing any new collections
(Unless you count AGH:A2 for the PC, which has two new games, but
lacks two of the games that were on the other versions). The Activison
EMU was the only one slated for a long while, even before this debate
started, even early last year.
_____________________________________________________________________
- Jon G. Kade - http://members.aol.com/ZK2Web -
- JGK...@earthlink.net - -
- ICQ: 9302189 - ZK² Technologies Inc. -
_____________________________________________________________________
Floyd Code: v1.2a r TW 0/0/ FD 3+ 0 TW 4 0 .9% <6oct98>
Classic Gaming Code: v. 1 VX 1/0 26 13/3 <6oct98>
Chris Cracknell
>It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
>money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When is
>someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
>rights?
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
13 million dollars.
Nobody needs more than 13 million dollars. If the wealth of the world were
evenly distributed then every man woman and child would have 13 million
dollars.
CRACKERS
(Works for me from hell!!!!!!!!)
Chris Cracknell
>Chris Cracknell <ad...@james.hwcn.org> wrote in article
><73hjeh$k...@james.hwcn.org>...
>>.
>
>legislation
>> to make it illegal to buy and sell used software means thrifting could
>> get very dry for all us classic collectors.
>
>What the hell?! Are they nuts? Sure, software manufacturers have the same
>legal rights as book publishers and record companies, but what the hell
>gave them the idea they were entitled to more?
Actually, the record industry has been pushing for this legislation even
before the software companies jumped on the bandwagon.
And they've both got a lot of money lobbying for their case. What do we
have on our side?
CRACKERS
(Scary but true from hell!!!!)
Chris Cracknell
>(don't ask for my sources, I know I'm accurate)
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Why do I suddenly feel like I'm back on talk.religion debating with
creationists?
CRACKERS
(Glenn Winters from hell!!!!!!!)
Jeff Vavasour
>: Gone With The Wind inspires.
>
>Well, those are bad examples, because they all have legitimate retail
>distribution channels.
This gets so tiring. The examples are valid. There are big names in games,
and they're still in distribution (Pac Man, Defender, etc.). There are small
names in movies, and they're not in distribution.
>Collector's swaps have a small selection. Videotopia has the same
>problem. It doesn't get to the masses.
The masses aren't looking for it.
>Yes, but the grey area is where the owners don't care about their rights,
>gain nothing from them, whereas trampling them can do a lot of good. It's
>which side you err on that the conversation is about.
If the owners don't care about it, then you should have no problem getting
permission. If you don't know who to ask, then you should try to research a
little harder. If you ask and they say "no" you have to respect that. It's
the presumptuousness that goads me into this debate.
>You want people to go through a lot of effort to no reward other
>than legitimacy. and risks that their bring more of a crackdown on
>themselves.
Well, that's an unflattering way of phrasing it (surprise, surprise), but,
effectively: Yes.
I wish people to express a little courtesy to the rightful owners. (Please,
for anyone contemplating the standard retort: "the rightful owners aren't
showing us any courtesy by hoarding the games." read over the older posts.
We've already been through that one. Let's not go around in circles.)
>: Ok, that's two people who've called me on that in short order. Poor
phrasing
>: there, I guess. By "die" I mean cease further duplication and distribution
of
>: those duplicates.
>
>But that would be taking it out of the pop-culture heritage, which I'm
>against.
No, it doesn't take out of our heritage. As I said, there was enough to
satisfy demand at the games' peak, and since demand has declined since then
(which invariably happens faster than mass degradation of the storage medium),
there's still enough out there for those who truly care about it.
>I see your point but don't feel that an antique-like collector's market is
>a sufficient means of distribution for the intellectual heritage of this
>stuff.
Why not? There *are* enough of these games still in existence to satisfy the
demand of those who are willing to lift a finger to do it. And they can be
maintained.
I maintain that those calling for reform (and they aren't really calling too
loudly -- really, it's just rhetoric) are the ones who can't be bothered to
make the effort to collect legitimately.
Where was the active campaigning for classic game preservation? When did that
legimate effort to get permission occur that's now lead to such cynicism and
disillusionment about industry cooperation for the cause? What's the best the
"masses" have done in this great cause? A reactionary form letter to the IDSA
after it's way too late.
But have no fear, the heritage will be preserved by those that care enough
about it to actually do the work. They were the ones that have been taking
care to do this work from the moment the games first hit the shelves. They are
the ones putting *effort* into things like World of Atari, Videotopia, and 13
hours of interview material with the 2600's programmers. These people deserve
a great deal of respect and commendation. By you're reasoning though, these
are people who "are getting no reward but legitimacy." IMHO, that's quite
belittling of their selfless effort, which has been quite a contrast to the
mass "I should have this for free... don't bother me" reactionaries.
Anyway, the Internet is not the last bastion of hope for the survival of these
games. Hell, the Internet wasn't known to the vast majority of people much
longer than MAME has been known to them. These games survived fine in the
hands of collectors. Where do you think the online archives came from?
It's ironic that you talk of the corporate utilisation of Atari's assets as
being parasitic, because that's exactly how I see the self-interested
underground emulation scene being.
>And as another one of those lame proposals you hate, if they were released
>to the public domain under the condition that it not be commercially
>rereleased, the assets would have the vast majority of their value.
My experience indicates that this is not the case.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
>In article <t7e72.2515$zB1.1...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>, "Jeff
Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
>>money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When
is
>>someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
>>rights?
>~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>
>13 million dollars.
>
>Nobody needs more than 13 million dollars. If the wealth of the world were
>evenly distributed then every man woman and child would have 13 million
>dollars.
That's neither here nor there (i.e. pretty off topic), but if you must:
When everyone in the world has 13 million dollars, a loaf of bread will cost
you about $5000. Economics aren't that simple.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
>In article <01be18e9$49536000$d08992d1@default>, "Pat McNeil"
<nos...@all.please> wrote:
>>What the hell?! Are they nuts? Sure, software manufacturers have the same
>>legal rights as book publishers and record companies, but what the hell
>>gave them the idea they were entitled to more?
>
>before the software companies jumped on the bandwagon.
>
>And they've both got a lot of money lobbying for their case. What do we
>have on our side?
Well, if you want to take a walk on the wild side of speculation, and accept
that DIVX and the like are the direction we're going to get pushed, and that
the industry is keen to exploit the resource-starved Internet to the full
extent of commercialism, eventually there won't *be* any medium any more.
You'll have pay per use movies and TV, just like DIVX, but no CD. Just a cable
going from your Converged Entertainment Centre to the wall.
When that situation arrives, there won't be much of a problem with obsolescence
either, because the corporate server space occupied by dead software isn't
going to be much of an issue for the companies involved. (For comparison, I
can back up all the software I ever purchased before CD-ROM arrived -- from
1977 to 1994 -- onto a single CD-R.)
So, they can just leave the old stuff up and purchasable/rentable with a "no
technical support" tag. Look at Microsoft for example: they've got FTP sites
with "dead" DOS components on it (e.g. QBASIC) that you used to have to pay
for.
- Jeff
Kirk Is
: Kirk Is wrote in message <73q5un$sug$1...@news3.tufts.edu>...
: >: Gone With The Wind inspires.
: [etc.]
: >
: >Well, those are bad examples, because they all have legitimate retail
: >distribution channels.
: This gets so tiring. The examples are valid. There are big names in games,
: and they're still in distribution (Pac Man, Defender, etc.). There are small
: names in movies, and they're not in distribution.
You're right, we've been over these points before. We should try to wind
down.
: >Collector's swaps have a small selection. Videotopia has the same
: >problem. It doesn't get to the masses.
: The masses aren't looking for it.
The popularity of MAME says there's some mass out there.
: >Yes, but the grey area is where the owners don't care about their rights,
: >gain nothing from them, whereas trampling them can do a lot of good. It's
: >which side you err on that the conversation is about.
: If the owners don't care about it, then you should have no problem getting
: permission.
Do all of the owners even know they have it? Have they been watching over
their babies that carefully? And there's little hope they won't play it
better safe than sorry, because they're concern is for *potential*
profits, not the ideas of the games themselves.
: If you don't know who to ask, then you should try to research a
: little harder. If you ask and they say "no" you have to respect that. It's
: the presumptuousness that goads me into this debate.
I know, you don't buy into the pop culture idea.
: >You want people to go through a lot of effort to no reward other
: >than legitimacy. and risks that their bring more of a crackdown on
: >themselves.
: Well, that's an unflattering way of phrasing it (surprise, surprise), but,
: effectively: Yes.
: I wish people to express a little courtesy to the rightful owners. (Please,
: for anyone contemplating the standard retort: "the rightful owners aren't
: showing us any courtesy by hoarding the games." read over the older posts.
: We've already been through that one. Let's not go around in circles.)
Ok. You've put up good arguments, so has the other side.
: >: Ok, that's two people who've called me on that in short order. Poor
: phrasing
: >: there, I guess. By "die" I mean cease further duplication and distribution
: of
: >: those duplicates.
: >
: >But that would be taking it out of the pop-culture heritage, which I'm
: >against.
: No, it doesn't take out of our heritage. As I said, there was enough to
: satisfy demand at the games' peak, and since demand has declined since then
: (which invariably happens faster than mass degradation of the storage medium),
: there's still enough out there for those who truly care about it.
These are more than antique collectibles. They carry information, part of
the intellectual DNA.
: >I see your point but don't feel that an antique-like collector's market is
: >a sufficient means of distribution for the intellectual heritage of this
: >stuff.
: Why not? There *are* enough of these games still in existence to satisfy the
: demand of those who are willing to lift a finger to do it. And they can be
: maintained.
"Lift a finger"-- you have been underplaying the difficulty of getting a
specific title for a while now.
: I maintain that those calling for reform (and they aren't really calling too
: loudly -- really, it's just rhetoric) are the ones who can't be bothered to
: make the effort to collect legitimately.
I'm sure you do.
: Where was the active campaigning for classic game preservation? When did that
: legimate effort to get permission occur that's now lead to such cynicism and
: disillusionment about industry cooperation for the cause? What's the best the
: "masses" have done in this great cause? A reactionary form letter to the IDSA
: after it's way too late.
The "active campaigning" was more active than you admit-- it was actively
making MAME. It's not just preserving the friggin bits and bytes, or the
hardware-- it's about keeping them viable as wide scale interaction. When
the retail markets are beyond caring, when the renters do longer give a
flying fart, when the Arcades had only the most popular of the olden
games available and a ton of one on one fighter crud, MAME and
Nesticle and Stella stepped in. And yes, I will admit there are some
problems when some company has its retail market for a product they came
up with somewhat eroded, but that's better than the other extreme of games
being lost to all but the most hardcore collectors.
: But have no fear, the heritage will be preserved by those that care enough
: about it to actually do the work. They were the ones that have been taking
: care to do this work from the moment the games first hit the shelves. They are
: the ones putting *effort* into things like World of Atari, Videotopia, and 13
: hours of interview material with the 2600's programmers. These people deserve
: a great deal of respect and commendation. By you're reasoning though, these
: are people who "are getting no reward but legitimacy." IMHO, that's quite
: belittling of their selfless effort, which has been quite a contrast to the
: mass "I should have this for free... don't bother me" reactionaries.
Whoa whoa whoa- "getting no reward but legitimacy" was for people who
want to distribute raw unadorned ROMs.
Videotopia is great, but it can only carry a small number of games, and a
small number of cities.
Besides, even with a thriving greymarket ROM scene, I still maintain
there's a lot of money to made by value-added emulation; get the name,
make the 3D version, research some history, add a little something and you
have an appeal beyond what people can get with the bare ROMs. The virtual
book Halcyon Days was fascinating, and would have been much more so with
ROMs and screenshots.
: Anyway, the Internet is not the last bastion of hope for the survival of these
: games. Hell, the Internet wasn't known to the vast majority of people much
: longer than MAME has been known to them. These games survived fine in the
: hands of collectors. Where do you think the online archives came from?
Yes, in the hand of collectors. I respect the work the archivists do, a
ton. But its not the same as having them playable in a pop culture sense.
: It's ironic that you talk of the corporate utilisation of Atari's assets as
: being parasitic, because that's exactly how I see the self-interested
: underground emulation scene being.
Yes, that's why I chose the word.
Atari's owners where in it for the cash at the expense of the games,
underground emulations are in it for the games at the expense of the cash.
There's a symmetry there.
: >And as another one of those lame proposals you hate, if they were released
: >to the public domain under the condition that it not be commercially
: >rereleased, the assets would have the vast majority of their value.
: My experience indicates that this is not the case.
I've heard other people attack raw undaroned emulation because the
legitimate stuff is so much prettier, with a bit of history and research
thrown in. I still think there's money to be made from that. And that
the stuff stamped official, getting distribution in Wal*Mart, possibly
with some value-added, can still do fine.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"I think sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it."
D. Brady
I'll type slowly so you'll not misunderstand...
In article <3660DB06...@gte.antispam.net>, Dan Mazurowski
<sme...@gte.antispam.net> wrote:
> So why don't you just buy the arcade machine?
I own multple arcade macines. Next.
> There are many auctions
> all over the country each year, the game you want is bound to turn up
> eventually.
Been there. Done that.
> Or are you opposed to paying $300 to $1000 for a full sized
> cabinet?
I am not opposed. I have done *exactly* that.
> If you aren't willing to make that kind of sacrifice then maybe
> you don't want it as badly as you thought. Why should you be entitled to
> download something for free, especially when you aren't willing to pay
> market value for the real thing?
Where in my post did I say I was 'entitled to download something for free'?
Where in my post did I say I wasn't willing to pay market value?
Jump to conclusions often?
Jeff Vavasour
>Do all of the owners even know they have it? Have they been watching over
>their babies that carefully? And there's little hope they won't play it
>better safe than sorry, because they're concern is for *potential*
>profits, not the ideas of the games themselves.
Again, a little research and you can answer those questions (who owns them)
yourself. As for there being little hope, people are fond of citing Vectrex.
I think people owe them the courtesy of trying.
As I said, if they do take the attitude "better safe than sorry" then people
should respect that and stick to buying second-hand originals.
>: If you don't know who to ask, then you should try to research a
>: little harder. If you ask and they say "no" you have to respect that. It's
>: the presumptuousness that goads me into this debate.
>
>I know, you don't buy into the pop culture idea.
What I don't buy into is the connection between pop culture and the need to
create unauthorised duplicates.
>: No, it doesn't take out of our heritage. As I said, there was enough to
>: satisfy demand at the games' peak, and since demand has declined since then
>: (which invariably happens faster than mass degradation of the storage
medium),
>: there's still enough out there for those who truly care about it.
>
>These are more than antique collectibles. They carry information, part of
>the intellectual DNA.
I'm not suggesting putting them in a display case. You can collect them and
preserve them *and* use them.
>"Lift a finger"-- you have been underplaying the difficulty of getting a
>specific title for a while now.
Well, I gave a specific example of how it wasn't too hard for me to locate the
very titles I was looking for. Maybe I was just lucky, but most don't even try
to know. Besides, try and mass duplicate the UR carts and see how the
collectors react. It's not just the companies that get upset.
>: I maintain that those calling for reform (and they aren't really calling too
>: loudly -- really, it's just rhetoric) are the ones who can't be bothered to
>: make the effort to collect legitimately.
>
>I'm sure you do.
Well, the point is it *is* just rhetoric. No one is really making an effort to
do it right (referring to inciting reform, now), which is symptomatic of the
whole situation.
>The "active campaigning" was more active than you admit-- it was actively
>making MAME.
Come now. Surely you don't see the writing of MAME as active campaigning to
the copyright owners for the release of the games into public domain? That's
what I was talking about.
>: Anyway, the Internet is not the last bastion of hope for the survival of
these
>: games. Hell, the Internet wasn't known to the vast majority of people much
>: longer than MAME has been known to them. These games survived fine in the
>: hands of collectors. Where do you think the online archives came from?
>
>Yes, in the hand of collectors. I respect the work the archivists do, a
>ton. But its not the same as having them playable in a pop culture sense.
I think the thing that we'll never agree on is what liberties can be presumed
for a pop culture legacy. You refer to hardcore collectors as being the only
ones who would have access to the games otherwise. (a) I don't think they need
be "hardcore" and (b) being a collector is not a birthright of the elite.
Anyone can be a collector.
>Atari's owners where in it for the cash at the expense of the games,
>underground emulations are in it for the games at the expense of the cash.
>There's a symmetry there.
Lets see how much pop culture legacy the latter can introduce. (No offence to
Duncan Brown, but I don't see many people clamouring to download Alien Arena.)
Sure Atari was in it for the cash when they *introduced* Asteroids, but without
that motivation there wouldn't have been an Asteroids. Hardware costs made it
prohibitive for any game to enter the mass market without financial incentive.
Why should expect them to change their colours now?
As for the latter, there are those, already, that have turned underground
emulation into a cash-making proposition. That's part of the decline and fall
of the genre. Any noble pretentions have slowly been eroding. Maybe there was
a core of nobility, but it's causing the industry more and more grief, to the
point that it is becoming inadvisable to ignore it. The only place they know
to cut it off is at the black-and-white letter of the law. It's difficult
enough trying to do that much. And, as I said, given that the scene has shown
them no courtesy even at the best of it, I imagine they're not motivated to
show courtesy in return. (If people had asked for permission in the
beginning... if there had been precedent and, more importantly, open dialogue,
you'd be able to make an awfully more effective case right now to the people
who could make the decisions.)
- Jeff
Dan Mazurowski
>
> Where in my post did I say I was 'entitled to download something for free'?
>
> Where in my post did I say I wasn't willing to pay market value?
>
You're right, you did not say those things. And I'm sorry you feel
slighted by my reply. But in the context of the discussion, you implied
these things. You said you "won't hold your breath waiting for an arcade
perfect version of Space Firebird." You also said that you would be more
sympathetic and supportive of the copyright owners anbd commercial
emulation efforts when you saw 'Exidy Arcade Classics' on any platform.
These statements clearly show opposition to those interested in
protecting their rights, thereby implying that you feel free downloads
should be permitted. You were snubbing your nose at those who are trying
to make legitimate product available. And why else would you be so keen
on perserving such free distribution if you were willing to pay market
value?
Maybe you should go back and read your remarks again, along with the
preceeding posts. Just what conclusions did you expect your readers to
reach with those remarks? Heck, just where do you stand in this
discussion - for or against free ROM distribution?
D. Brady
<sme...@gte.antispam.net> wrote:
> You were snubbing your nose at those who are trying
> to make legitimate product available.
I was "snubbing my nose at those who" *aren't* "trying to make legitamate
product available."
I've been very consistent - create the product and I will buy.
D. Brady
<je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> Hell, the Internet wasn't known to the vast majority of people much
> longer than MAME has been known to them. These games survived fine in the
> hands of collectors.
Jeff, Chris, etc...
I guess I'm in the unvast minority - I've been on the 'internet' for way
over a decade now. Long enough to witness the birth (in so many words) of
us cranky arcade preservationists exchanging information via the net.
> Where do you think the online archives came from?
Us - at least at first.
So, here are two open questions. I'd love to hear unfiltered opinions
from all involved in this conversation.
1) I own a Gravitar machine (amongst others). I do not own the Black
Widow conversion set, but I have burned a set of Black Widow ROMs (in the
pre-'wiretap' days) and can swap them and a modified control panel into
the machine at will. What are the legal issues? Ethical issues? How is
it different from emulation?
2) Others own Star Wars machines - of course, those machines also run a
fine game of Empire Strikes Back provided you can hunt down the conversion
boards. Which are nearly impossible I've been told. On the other hand, a
few enterprising folk have figured out how to create third-party Empire
Strikes Back conversions and will sell them for the cost of materials.
Not a small feat - and I must add it met with almost universal support
amongst the collector community. What are the legal issues? Ethical
issues? Compare to emulation issues...
Chris Cracknell
>Chris Cracknell wrote in message <73qtf0$i...@james.hwcn.org>...
>Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>>It's the Robin Hood mentality, though. You think the companies have enough
>>>money, so you don't mind ripping them off. How much is enough, then? When
>is
>>>someone or some collection of people rich enough to justify dismissing their
>>>rights?
>>~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>>
>>13 million dollars.
>>
>>Nobody needs more than 13 million dollars. If the wealth of the world were
>>evenly distributed then every man woman and child would have 13 million
>>dollars.
>
>That's neither here nor there (i.e. pretty off topic), but if you must:
>
>When everyone in the world has 13 million dollars, a loaf of bread will cost
>you about $5000. Economics aren't that simple.
I was just being a smart-ass, sorry I should have thrown in some emoticons. ;)
But hey, why not scrap our primative economics system altogether and develope
a system where there are no "haves" and "have nots"... oh wait... I forgot,
the "haves" are the ones in power and will do everything they can to
prevent such a system from coming into being. Oh well, nice idea while
it lasted.
CRACKERS
(Damn forgot the Emoticon again from hell!!!)
Kirk Is
: Kirk Is wrote in message <73rk74$7n2$6...@news3.tufts.edu>...
: >Do all of the owners even know they have it? Have they been watching over
: >their babies that carefully? And there's little hope they won't play it
: >better safe than sorry, because they're concern is for *potential*
: >profits, not the ideas of the games themselves.
: Again, a little research and you can answer those questions (who owns them)
: yourself. As for there being little hope, people are fond of citing Vectrex.
: I think people owe them the courtesy of trying.
Just out of curiosity, what does this "little research" consist of?
: As I said, if they do take the attitude "better safe than sorry" then people
: should respect that and stick to buying second-hand originals.
Better safe than sorry? The more unworking NES carts I buy, the sorrier I
am ;-)
Not to mention the tweaks I can do with ROMs that I can't with material
carts. NESticles save state feature, a DOS debug hack to a river raid rom
that let me explore the game in a way the designers never envisioned...
: >I know, you don't buy into the pop culture idea.
: What I don't buy into is the connection between pop culture and the need to
: create unauthorised duplicates.
The collector's market is VERY NARROW. The level of interest is FAIRLY
WIDE. I don't think the companies are going to be in a position to make
up the difference. And its not as if the collectors aren't out there
already.
: >: No, it doesn't take out of our heritage. As I said, there was enough to
: >: satisfy demand at the games' peak, and since demand has declined since then
: >: (which invariably happens faster than mass degradation of the storage
: medium),
: >: there's still enough out there for those who truly care about it.
: >
: >These are more than antique collectibles. They carry information, part of
: >the intellectual DNA.
: I'm not suggesting putting them in a display case. You can collect them and
: preserve them *and* use them.
And then 10 people can encounter the game, instead of 1000.
And its more likely to break down.
: Well, I gave a specific example of how it wasn't too hard for me to locate the
: very titles I was looking for. Maybe I was just lucky, but most don't even try
: to know. Besides, try and mass duplicate the UR carts and see how the
: collectors react. It's not just the companies that get upset.
I've seen a great number of UR ROMs out there.
And people still pay big money for the real thing, the people who care
about hardware.
: >The "active campaigning" was more active than you admit-- it was actively
: >making MAME.
: Come now. Surely you don't see the writing of MAME as active campaigning to
: the copyright owners for the release of the games into public domain? That's
: what I was talking about.
Oh, I thought you meant "campaigning" in the sense of working to add to
video preservation culture.
: >: Anyway, the Internet is not the last bastion of hope for the survival of
: these
: >: games. Hell, the Internet wasn't known to the vast majority of people much
: >: longer than MAME has been known to them. These games survived fine in the
: >: hands of collectors. Where do you think the online archives came from?
: >
: >Yes, in the hand of collectors. I respect the work the archivists do, a
: >ton. But its not the same as having them playable in a pop culture sense.
: I think the thing that we'll never agree on is what liberties can be presumed
: for a pop culture legacy. You refer to hardcore collectors as being the only
: ones who would have access to the games otherwise. (a) I don't think they need
: be "hardcore" and (b) being a collector is not a birthright of the elite.
: Anyone can be a collector.
You really want everyone that chained to the damn hardware?
My only options for Time Pilot '84 would be A. Hope and pray and hope and
pray some manufacturer desides to stick it on some release or B. hope and
pray and hope and pray one shows up at an auction??? And even then, I
wouldn't have the opportunity to use the MAME cheat codes that have let me
fully explore the games world.
: >Atari's owners where in it for the cash at the expense of the games,
: >underground emulations are in it for the games at the expense of the cash.
: >There's a symmetry there.
: Lets see how much pop culture legacy the latter can introduce. (No offence to
: Duncan Brown, but I don't see many people clamouring to download Alien Arena.)
: Sure Atari was in it for the cash when they *introduced* Asteroids, but without
: that motivation there wouldn't have been an Asteroids. Hardware costs made it
: prohibitive for any game to enter the mass market without financial incentive.
: Why should expect them to change their colours now?
Well, it would be nice if we could expect them to continue innovating.
They parasite the ROMs for money, the underground scene parasites the
ROMs for games.
: As for the latter, there are those, already, that have turned underground
: emulation into a cash-making proposition. That's part of the decline and fall
: of the genre. Any noble pretentions have slowly been eroding. Maybe there was
: a core of nobility, but it's causing the industry more and more grief, to the
: point that it is becoming inadvisable to ignore it. The only place they know
: to cut it off is at the black-and-white letter of the law. It's difficult
: enough trying to do that much. And, as I said, given that the scene has shown
: them no courtesy even at the best of it, I imagine they're not motivated to
: show courtesy in return. (If people had asked for permission in the
: beginning... if there had been precedent and, more importantly, open dialogue,
: you'd be able to make an awfully more effective case right now to the people
: who could make the decisions.)
A world with MAME enthusiasts publishing every ROM they can get their
hands on is better then the one that would have resulted from the one
where the companies only released the games they thought they could make
money from. (Not having a way of making money doesn't stop many companies
from saying No) Maybe, anyway. A micropayment system would've been ideal,
but way too many things would've had to have gone right to have anywhere
near the library that MAME has now.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"If I knew who Godot was, I would have said so in the play" --Beckett
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>Collector's swaps have a small selection. Videotopia has the same
>problem. It doesn't get to the masses.
Namco Museum gets to the masses.
Midway's AGH gets to the masses.
>Yes, but the grey area is where the owners don't care about their rights,
Recent developments show that they in fact do.
>gain nothing from them, whereas trampling them can do a lot of good.
At the possible expense of some legitimate and _thorough_ digital
preservation going on by companies like Digital Eclipse.
Believe me, if there were packages out there that presented these ROMs
in a polished environment with a really rock solid emulation complete
with art and history, and it were illegal, I'd be far more tolerant of
the ROM sites.
As it stands, I don't really see how ROM distribution is a suitable
form of digital archaeology since it only preserves the guts of the
game, devoid of its shell and its context.
There has been some talk of wrappers for things like 2600 ROMs that
contain multimedia, but not a lot of serious followup work on that
front. You can find transcriptions of manuals or scans from box art
here and there (Digital Press CD for instance), but not all together
in a coherent package.
>You want people to go through a lot of effort to no reward other
>than legitimacy. and risks that their bring more of a crackdown on
>themselves.
There can be rewards in the long-term. I am inifinitely happier that
Cyberpunks got permission to release our CD rather than releasing it
behind the scenes. Had I done the latter, I never would have been so
open about it, and our CD never would have gotten the kind of
attention it did (Wired, Replication News, etc...) By doing this,
Cyberpunks can be taken seriously by game companies rather than being
seen as a borderline pirating outfit. This opens doors to cooperation
in the future...
The same would be true of any truly legitimate effort, whether
commercial or nonprofit.
>I see your point but don't feel that an antique-like collector's market is
>a sufficient means of distribution for the intellectual heritage of this
>stuff.
Nor is distributing the raw ROMs.
Glenn Saunders
<je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>(If people had asked for permission in the
>beginning... if there had been precedent and, more importantly, open dialogue,
>you'd be able to make an awfully more effective case right now to the people
>who could make the decisions.)
Not only that, but persistence is very important.
A company may agree to a licensing deal for an insane figure, and only
six months or a year later they may lower it down to something viable.
What this stuff is worth is really up to the whims of the executive on
the other side of the phone with the authority to make the decision.
Persistence and how well you make your case means a lot.
This kind of thing is happening all the time.
Just recently there was the situation between 4-Play and Hasbro
Interactive regarding the Jaguar encryption for Battlesphere.
That situation looked dire, but it was resolved without any blood
spilt, and I hope, no bankruptcies on the part of 4-Play.
You pretty much have to expect the executives to be unsympathetic at
first. They require a lot of careful re-education to come back to
reality.
Glenn Saunders
wrote:
>If the history were that much better, people will buy it.
It's not fair to force companies to do more to compete directly with
the same stuff that's being given away against their permission.
This is, after all, a capitalistic society. Companies have been
castigated for "chip dumping" and other unfair practices, and to any
student of economics this would be a similar unfair situation.
>Then again, I always think the fundamental inforamtion is much more
>important than the trappings.
Historically speaking, though, it's just not the whole package. Even
today game companies put a lot of effort into making splashy boxes for
their games. There is a lot of cultural history in the packaging of
videogames. Comparing an Imagic 2600 box to an N64 box says almost as
much about the different eras as the games themselves.
And what about games that had a LOT of materials with the games like
the Pitfall II box, or large manuals that you need to read like Space
Shuttle?
And think of the sheer rarity-factor. The vast majority of carts
remaining lack boxes, and the majority also lack manuals. Although
the lone manuals or boxes aren't a major collectible, they are much
more endangered than the cartridges themselves.
The same is certainly true of arcade machines. Coin ops, if their
cabinet hasn't deteriorated, are often converted into another game,
with new controls and side art applied, and the board is torn out and
left by itself. There were far fewer arcade units produced than all
but the rarest videogame cartridges, so you can imagine that
collectible games in their original cabinets are very rare. Being
able to reconstruct how they looked with the original art is therefore
a worthwhile thing to do.
More specifically, when I was at the World of Atari '98 convention, I
paid into the Asteroids Deluxe raffle and got to walk away with my
choice of Atari one-sheet arcade promotional flyers.
The vast majority of the games represented here I do not see even in
collector's circles (when was the last time you saw a Compugraphic ,
therefore these mere sheets are valuable pieces of history in lieu of
finding the original cabinets which may no longer even exist.
As time goes on, "digital historians" will have to really think hard
about whether to save the programs alone or the whole enchilada.
Videotopia really is one of a kind, and it's great being able to see a
real vintage cabinet like Computer Space up close and just feel how
different it is due to the materials and craftsmanship that went into
it vs. today's machines, but scanned photos are the next best
compromise.
> A lot of people get into the sensuality of
>books, for instance-- the feel of the paper, the choice of font, the cover
>art, etc etc. Same with video games-- collectors like the carts, the look
>of a NTSC screen, etc. Not me, though. It's the little microcosm created
>that gets me.
But you have to admit that from a purely historical perspective, the
other factors do matter, and are worthy of preservation.
>But it MIGHT NOT IN AREASONABLE TIME. Time Pilot 2084, I'd never hope to
>see that in commercial rerelease. But I can play it on MAME.
That's fine.
I have Led Zeppelin bootlegs. I am not pure and I don't presume to
rationalize what I do other than to say that listening to those
bootlegs is more important than following the letter of the law.
I'm not saying don't play it on MAME, just don't consider yourself
morally pure if you do, and be willing to pay the consequences if you
get caught rather than trying to point the blame back onto the
software companies for not giving you what YOU wanted when YOU wanted
it.
Glenn Saunders
>Yep, we buy Vectrexes because they're free. We buy 2600 carts because
>they're free. We spend time and money working on our real life
>collections because it's all free. Wanna rephrase that, Glenn?
I'm not talking about the collecting market, I'm talking about the
people who play ROMs on emus.
>As would I, but even Digital Eclipse isn't doing any new collections
I wouldn't be so certain if I were you :/
Glenn Saunders
Brady) wrote:
>Ah yes. I'll to be a bit more 'sympathetic and supportive' once I see
There was a Nichibichu (sp) classics. If they can do one, anything's
possible.
Glenn Saunders
Brady) wrote:
>> Or are you opposed to paying $300 to $1000 for a full sized
>> cabinet?
>
>I am not opposed. I have done *exactly* that.
If you own Space Firebird, you can legally own the ROM image and play
it on MAME.
EarthDwarf
>The Rise And Fall Of Atari" at your local Waldens.
And look how many books have been lost throughout history because nobody
copied them when they were out of print. Should we let the same happen to
videogames?
-Knorin
Jeff Vavasour
>But hey, why not scrap our primative economics system altogether and develope
>a system where there are no "haves" and "have nots"... oh wait... I forgot,
>the "haves" are the ones in power and will do everything they can to
>prevent such a system from coming into being. Oh well, nice idea while
>it lasted.
Isn't this full-fledged socialism? Wasn't the by-product a complete
disinterest in doing quality work?
- Jeff
Kirk Is
: On 29 Nov 1998 01:04:29 GMT, kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is)
: wrote:
: >If the history were that much better, people will buy it.
: It's not fair to force companies to do more to compete directly with
: the same stuff that's being given away against their permission.
Yes it's not completely fair. On the other hand, they still have a lot of
room for enhanced products.
[snip]
: As time goes on, "digital historians" will have to really think hard
: about whether to save the programs alone or the whole enchilada.
[snip]
: > A lot of people get into the sensuality of
: >books, for instance-- the feel of the paper, the choice of font, the cover
: >art, etc etc. Same with video games-- collectors like the carts, the look
: >of a NTSC screen, etc. Not me, though. It's the little microcosm created
: >that gets me.
: But you have to admit that from a purely historical perspective, the
: other factors do matter, and are worthy of preservation.
And the collectors will probably do an ok job of preserving most of that.
I'm not arguing its not worth preserving, I was saying that the small
amount that can be *physically* preserved is not enough to satisfy the
demand for interacting with the games.
: >But it MIGHT NOT IN AREASONABLE TIME. Time Pilot 2084, I'd never hope to
: >see that in commercial rerelease. But I can play it on MAME.
: That's fine.
: I have Led Zeppelin bootlegs. I am not pure and I don't presume to
: rationalize what I do other than to say that listening to those
: bootlegs is more important than following the letter of the law.
: I'm not saying don't play it on MAME, just don't consider yourself
: morally pure if you do, and be willing to pay the consequences if you
: get caught rather than trying to point the blame back onto the
: software companies for not giving you what YOU wanted when YOU wanted
: it.
I gave up purity, moral or otherwise, a long time. Philosophically, I've
always been opposed to "the search for perfection" (such as in spelling;-)
I speed as well. I accept that there may be consequences for this, both
legal and in terms of accident risk. Stuff like MAME has too high of a
benefit/risk ratio not to be worth it.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
Miracles aren't always blessings --_Hawkeye_
Kirk Is
: On 29 Nov 1998 00:53:43 GMT, kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is)
: wrote:
: >Collector's swaps have a small selection. Videotopia has the same
: >problem. It doesn't get to the masses.
: Namco Museum gets to the masses.
: Midway's AGH gets to the masses.
Yes, and they represent small select subsets of what a MAME can do.
: >Yes, but the grey area is where the owners don't care about their rights,
: Recent developments show that they in fact do.
Yeah, I'm sure the owners of every single MAME ROM were writing personal
letters to goad the ISDA into action. Hell, if I believed that might've
happened, I wouldn't be so pessimistic about finding the owners.
: >gain nothing from them, whereas trampling them can do a lot of good.
: At the possible expense of some legitimate and _thorough_ digital
: preservation going on by companies like Digital Eclipse.
: Believe me, if there were packages out there that presented these ROMs
: in a polished environment with a really rock solid emulation complete
: with art and history, and it were illegal, I'd be far more tolerant of
: the ROM sites.
: As it stands, I don't really see how ROM distribution is a suitable
: form of digital archaeology since it only preserves the guts of the
: game, devoid of its shell and its context.
I've never cared about shell and context. I'm kind of postpostmodern that
way. That's why I like the purity of ASCII e-mail and I've already
described what I think is important in book collecting.
: There has been some talk of wrappers for things like 2600 ROMs that
: contain multimedia, but not a lot of serious followup work on that
: front. You can find transcriptions of manuals or scans from box art
: here and there (Digital Press CD for instance), but not all together
: in a coherent package.
I'd actually think you'd want to leave such packages alone for the
companies to make a buck off of!
It's easy to bundle a ROM, more difficult to make an emulator, even more
difficult to do that research. I think there will be a paying market when
the third is done, even if the first two are made FREELY available by
hobbyists.
: >You want people to go through a lot of effort to no reward other
: >than legitimacy. and risks that their bring more of a crackdown on
: >themselves.
: There can be rewards in the long-term. I am inifinitely happier that
: Cyberpunks got permission to release our CD rather than releasing it
: behind the scenes. Had I done the latter, I never would have been so
: open about it, and our CD never would have gotten the kind of
: attention it did (Wired, Replication News, etc...) By doing this,
: Cyberpunks can be taken seriously by game companies rather than being
: seen as a borderline pirating outfit. This opens doors to cooperation
: in the future...
: The same would be true of any truly legitimate effort, whether
: commercial or nonprofit.
Uh, what?
: >I see your point but don't feel that an antique-like collector's market is
: >a sufficient means of distribution for the intellectual heritage of this
: >stuff.
: Nor is distributing the raw ROMs.
Yes, but raw ROMs is better than the NOTHING we're likely to be obscured
by the owners.
Jon Kade
Saunders) became just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 02:07:22 GMT, jgk...@usa.net (Jon Kade) wrote:
I meant to say, for a while. I know they're prolly doing some next
year, but that's quite a long time....
_____________________________________________________________________
- Jon G. Kade - http://members.aol.com/ZK2Web -
- JGK...@earthlink.net - -
- ICQ: 9302189 - ZK² Technologies Inc. -
_____________________________________________________________________
Floyd Code: v1.2a r TW 0/0/ FD 3+ 0 WYWH 4 0 .9% <30nov98>
Jon Kade
Saunders) became just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:42:38 -0700, per...@mapson.mindspring.com (D.
But if you own it, why in the WORLD would you play it on an EMU? =)
I need to get a Joust machine one of these days...
Jon Kade
Saunders) became just another brick in the wall, by saying:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:08:06 -0700, per...@mapson.mindspring.com (D.
>Brady) wrote:
>>Ah yes. I'll to be a bit more 'sympathetic and supportive' once I see
>>'Exidy Arcade Classics' on any platform.
>
>There was a Nichibichu (sp) classics. If they can do one, anything's
>possible.
But it only came out in Japan. What good does that do? I would have
gladly bought that or Hyper Crazy Climber, but they were made in
extremely small runs, and are impossible to find. Too bad...
Kirk Is
: So, here are two open questions. I'd love to hear unfiltered opinions
: from all involved in this conversation.
: 1) I own a Gravitar machine (amongst others). I do not own the Black
: Widow conversion set, but I have burned a set of Black Widow ROMs (in the
: pre-'wiretap' days) and can swap them and a modified control panel into
: the machine at will. What are the legal issues? Ethical issues? How is
: it different from emulation?
Can't say it's much different, except of course the copying potential
*from* you is pretty small. At least you paid a buck to some collector,
which theoretically got back to the original copyright owner. Or
something.
Which, of course, means I'm all for what you're doing.
: 2) Others own Star Wars machines - of course, those machines also run a
: fine game of Empire Strikes Back provided you can hunt down the conversion
: boards. Which are nearly impossible I've been told. On the other hand, a
: few enterprising folk have figured out how to create third-party Empire
: Strikes Back conversions and will sell them for the cost of materials.
: Not a small feat - and I must add it met with almost universal support
: amongst the collector community. What are the legal issues? Ethical
: issues? Compare to emulation issues...
Again, little difference. Hardware isn't that much better than a floppy
disk, its just that its harder to duplicate. And you never know, your
copy of ESB may erode the profits of the new trilogy coming up, or stop
someone from buying the commercial rerelease of ESB-- or more likely, stop
tons of people from buying Rogue Squadron when it comes out for the N64!
Shyeah, right.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"Fear is the lock, and laughter the key to your heart."
-Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Dan Mazurowski
>
> In article <3661E4DE...@gte.antispam.net>, Dan Mazurowski
> <sme...@gte.antispam.net> wrote:
>
> > You were snubbing your nose at those who are trying
> > to make legitimate product available.
>
> I was "snubbing my nose at those who" *aren't* "trying to make legitamate
> product available."
>
> I've been very consistent - create the product and I will buy.
>
OK, now I get it. :)
WShrake
Heehee, I wondered when that subject would come up. Just waited quietly till it
did.... I feel you really could make a lot of comparisons to various of the
previous posts, claiming it was a debate over the relative pros and cons of
communism versus capitolism.
However, to play Devil's Advocate in regards to Jeff's question above, they
Soviets did beat the US into space, didn't they? (Remember all the fuss over
the Soviet Sputnik satellite?) If they beat us while being completely
disinterested in quality work, that doesn't speak to highly for our side, does
it?
Ward Shrake
Remember the Commodore VIC-20? Like classic videogames?
Then check out... http://members.aol.com/wshrake/index.htm
Jeff Vavasour
>I guess I'm in the unvast minority - I've been on the 'internet' for way
>over a decade now.
FWIW, I signed up for academic reasons in 1989, though I don't believe the
Internet actually took over until 1991. Before that, it was Bitnet (and
Netnorth for use in Canada). (To get really tangential, I believe it's
actually, technically, the CA*net authority in Canada now, not Internet.)
>Long enough to witness the birth (in so many words) of
>us cranky arcade preservationists exchanging information via the net.
>
>> Where do you think the online archives came from?
>
>Us - at least at first.
If by "us" you mean collectors, that was my point.
>So, here are two open questions. I'd love to hear unfiltered opinions
>from all involved in this conversation.
>
>1) I own a Gravitar machine (amongst others). I do not own the Black
>Widow conversion set, but I have burned a set of Black Widow ROMs (in the
>pre-'wiretap' days) and can swap them and a modified control panel into
>the machine at will. What are the legal issues? Ethical issues? How is
>it different from emulation?
Legally, it's improper unless you rescued them from a dead boardset.
Ethical issues: well, you see there was a time when these ROM archives
existed with the passive consent of TPTB, because they only served to
benefit collectors and refurbishers. One thing that's worth throwing into
the mix is the fact that Williams own official site (www.wms.com) does
provide exactly this sort of ROM archive for their pinball machines even to
this day. They don't mind because they know ithey won't be mistreated.
So, I figure that the companies used to be ok with it, so while it is
technically illegal, they didn't seem to mind, and really, since it was
ultimately up to them... case closed. Now, that leniency has bred a new
menace to the industry, so to speak, and the face of the situation has
changed.
So, does that mean that emulation has forced them to turn aggressive on
collectors too? I don't think I could find a person in Midway who would
actually mind what you've done (the fact that these aren't Midway games
aside :-) ).
I think it all comes down to *apparent* intent. One can cloak the
underground emulation arguments in airs of pseudo-legitimacy, but actions
speak louder than words. Your actions do not threaten. Through
indiscriminant mass distribution, there's do... at least to a sufficiently
greater degree for the industry to perceive a threat.
When it comes down to it, I really feel my closing statement on the issue is
this:
All the talk of "preserving culture and art" is fine, but when it is used as
justification for unauthorised mass distribution, it's weak and
self-serving. The justification is invented after the fact to make people
feel better, but the action is symptomatic of a bigger and more widespread
problem. The bigger threat of MP3 bootlegging is another example of the
same trend.
The fact is that the Internet has made bootlegging/piracy *easier*. Piracy
has always been around, but except for the occasional organised operations
(which were targetted by law enforcement wherever possible) it was a local
phenomenon. One original found its way into maybe a dozen homes, in
generous circumstances. There was an arms race of copy protection and
robust copiers, which kept the thing from becoming an epidemic.
Even DIVX is nothing new when you get down to it. It's just another round
at attempting copy protection.
With software, the industry took a great step back when they got too
aggressive with Prolok, wherein unauthorised copies would erase your hard
drive if they became aware of their unauthorised status. That killed the
copy protection acceptability altogether. (And, I do agree with other
consumers that this measure was definitely over the edge. No company could
do sufficient beta testing to leave me comfortable with that concept. If my
hard drive is going to be erased, I want it to be a complete accident... not
the consequence of any intentional code.)
So the industry suffered a set-back in the arms race. For a time CD-ROMs
were too prohibitively large to be convenient for large scale unauthorised
duplication, but that changed. The Internet can support the bandwidth and
large-scale distribution, and, separately CD duplication is cheap. So, some
of the last barriers to piracy have fallen.
This is a time in the technological evolution when precedents will be set.
The industry has a history of slow response time, but it is fully evident
now that this will no longer cut it, so they panic. They take a pre-emptive
strike on everything that is either a real threat or has the potential to be
a future threat.
Mass-distributed underground emulation has all the infrastructure of this
next generation of piracy that they're so worried about. Much above the
value of the games in question, it is an important precedent. To give in in
any way is to invite further compromises in the future, until all ownership
rights are eventually eroded (practically speaking, though perhaps not on
the books).
So, to answer your question more directly: you do not represent a foot
soldier in this large scale war that worries them so much, so they aren't
concerned about you as a hardware collector. If their passive consideration
of your situation is enough to satisfy you, then you have your ethical
answer.
(BTW, while I'm on the topic, regarding this suggestion of a central royalty
agency as done for music: the problem I see here is who would pay the
royalties? Would all these people happily go from underground free
distribution to sanctioned distribution with a micropayment toll? I think
not.)
>2) Others own Star Wars machines - of course, those machines also run a
>fine game of Empire Strikes Back provided you can hunt down the conversion
>boards. Which are nearly impossible I've been told. On the other hand, a
>few enterprising folk have figured out how to create third-party Empire
>Strikes Back conversions and will sell them for the cost of materials.
>Not a small feat - and I must add it met with almost universal support
>amongst the collector community. What are the legal issues? Ethical
>issues? Compare to emulation issues...
Obviously, if you'd done this in the games' prime, you'd be in trouble.
Legally, that hasn't changed, but again you're off the main battlefield.
The industry's current concern with underground emulation has *much* to do
with the mass-distribution aspect. So, again, the ethics have to do with
how one responds to a situation wherein the perpetrator does commit a
technically illegal act, but wherein the offended party knows and doesn't
mind. Consider that hitting a person is assault. If there was consent
(e.g. in a boxing match), however, it's not a crime.
As a courtesy, then, I feel that it's best to seek consent actively (well,
particularly in the mass-distribution scenario of emulation). That's what
I've been advocating all along. Then, there can be no misunderstandings
where the "perpetrator" gets too comfortable, mistakes slow response for
consent, and then is shocked and indignated when finally called to task for
the presumptuous action.
Ethics are a subjective thing, but to me, the above would be a fair
solution.
For the case of retrofitting of Star Wars to Empire Strikes Back, *I* would
think that as long as it not a mass phenomenon, the industry is likely to be
unconcerned. It's up to your own ethics whether that's sufficient.
- Jeff
Kirk Is
: (BTW, while I'm on the topic, regarding this suggestion of a central royalty
: agency as done for music: the problem I see here is who would pay the
: royalties? Would all these people happily go from underground free
: distribution to sanctioned distribution with a micropayment toll? I think
: not.)
You're the one looking for options for honest people. Since the emulators
do exist, but the comapanies haven't been nimble enough to make and sell
their own, this could leverage the existing emulator scene. Of course
there will be some scammers, but it could get legitimacy and exposure the
pirate sites wouldn't have. Most importantly, the games would be readily
available. While I see and to a small extent sympathize with your take on
the industry's view, for most of these older games, THE GAMES WON'T BE
PLAYED unless SOMEONE provides an emulator. And that is an unnecesary
sadness I'd like to avoid.
[snip ESB]
: Obviously, if you'd done this in the games' prime, you'd be in trouble.
So ethically, you do see a difference between mass market games and games
past their prime. The water is muddied by games that might be rereleased
at a profit, but I'm glad to see you draw this distinction.
: Legally, that hasn't changed, but again you're off the main battlefield.
: The industry's current concern with underground emulation has *much* to do
: with the mass-distribution aspect. So, again, the ethics have to do with
: how one responds to a situation wherein the perpetrator does commit a
: technically illegal act, but wherein the offended party knows and doesn't
: mind. Consider that hitting a person is assault. If there was consent
: (e.g. in a boxing match), however, it's not a crime.
Tell that to the prosecutors who are after Dr. Kevorkian-- sometimes the
law does not see consent as an excuse. Leading to a whole host of
"victimless crimes".
: For the case of retrofitting of Star Wars to Empire Strikes Back, *I* would
: think that as long as it not a mass phenomenon, the industry is likely to be
: unconcerned. It's up to your own ethics whether that's sufficient.
Yeah, you must fight to preserve the integrity of the star wars franchise.
Uh-huh.
Play that sucka!
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"you're such a sensitive boy that sometimes
I just wanna slap you really hard." --Aimee Lortskell
Christopher L. Tumber
"Jeff Vavasour" wrote:
>Would all these people happily go from underground free
>distribution to sanctioned distribution with a micropayment toll? I think
>not.)
to make such payments particularly if they went (at least in part) to the
games' original creators. (ie: If Bally/Williams/Midway, Namco, Sega,
Nintendo, etc.. started some "Old coders pension" funded by emulator ROMS).
I'd certainly be glad to pay $5 or $10 for the "legal" license to use the
two dozen or so ROMS I play all the time and I think most gamers would.
In fact, I think this air of legitimacy would provide a huge boost to the
hobby and a "win-win" situation all around.