2 Dec
1999
2 Dec
'99
3:14 p.m.
I wrote:
Derek Peschel inquired:
> sites for the small computers I collect.
Unfortunately there are groups
in
the US which
oppose this activity -- not because any of the program
authors
> are objecting at this late date -- but because these groups propose that
> *any* form of emulation, or use of *alien* hardware, to run, store, or
> transfer these programs is illegal and should be stopped. That's a broad claim. Do you have any details
about who those groups are?
Yes. Some retrogamers I know have a group called CLEAR, which favors
emulation. You can find them at:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/clear/
For a look at the IDSA -- who oppose emulation -- check out:
http://www.idsa.com/piracy.html
Glen Goodwin
0/0
3 Dec
3 Dec
3:50 a.m.
At 09:14 PM 12/2/99 EST, Glenatacme(a)aol.com wrote:
For a look at the IDSA -- who oppose emulation -- check out:
http://www.idsa.com/piracy.html
Read this page more closely. This group opposes emulators
on the basis of the rights of the creators of a game, and the
right of that author to restrict how the software is used.
Read the FAQ on the page there, and it says:
Aren't emulators programs that somebody has
created and decided to distribute freely? What's
wrong with that?
While some emulators are made by hobbyist programmers, that
does not mean that they are legal. If the sole purpose of an
emulator is to allow the playing of a console game on a PC, and
the owner of the copyrights in that console game has not
authorized the copying, performance, display, or derivative work
created when a console game is played on a PC, then the
creation and use of that emulator constitutes an infringement of
the copyrights in the console game.
The first time I read this, I thought they were opposed to
emulators in general. The second time I read it, I realized they
were stressing the rights of the cart and/or game maker. This
statement makes perfect sense in light of the console industry's
policies and licenses.
As someone pointed out on this list a few messages ago, the
console makers require special agreements with the game makers.
You must abide by their rules if you want to make games for
their system; you pay to become a developer, you pay for tools,
you must give them a royalty on sales, you may be required to
sell your product through their channels and mechanisms and
within their rules. This isn't the PC market where you can
buy a compiler and make and sell your own game without Michael
Dell's or Bill Gates' permission.
I see where this is going, though - it's similar to a shrink-wrap
license. When I buy a Nintendo cart, am I in effect signing a
contract that says I won't run it on an emulator?
Does IDSA oppose a popular generic emulator such as MAME per se?
Probably not. The above argument doesn't necessarily hold.
The maker of "Battlezone" never sold those upright video game
ROMs outside of their structure for arcade systems. They
licensed the concept to PC makers, but that's different.
Ripping off a Battlezone ROM for MAME still violates someone's
copyright. It has nothing to do with the emulator.
To bring this slightly on-topic, many classic computers have
weird restrictions in their operating system software licenses, too.
I'm sure there's someone out there with deep knowledge of the
DEC emulators, for example, to describe how that license works.
- John
7:31 a.m.
John wrote:
The first time I read this, I thought they were
opposed to
emulators in general. The second time I read it, I realized they
were stressing the rights of the cart and/or game maker. This
statement makes perfect sense in light of the console industry's
policies and licenses.
Yes, but as an end user I am not subject to their policies.
A similar situation exists with products I buy here in the US that
are marked "Only for sale in the USA and Canada". Unless there are
export laws or regulations that prohibit it (which there usually aren't),
there's no reason I can't take the item to another country and sell it.
Similary, I buy DVDs manufactured for sale in Japan. They are NTSC but
encoded for region 2 play only. I've had to modify my DVD player to
allow play of non-region-1 discs. I'm sure the recording industry hates
it when people do this, but there isn't actually anything they can do.
(Even under the new Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which bans defeating
copy protection systems.)
I see where this is going, though - it's similar
to a shrink-wrap
license. When I buy a Nintendo cart, am I in effect signing a
contract that says I won't run it on an emulator?
No.
Of course, IANAL so YMMV.
Eric
10:28 a.m.
I see where this is going, though - it's similar to
a shrink-wrap
license. When I buy a Nintendo cart, am I in effect signing a
contract that says I won't run it on an emulator?
How is this different from buying a CD and making a cassette for your
walkman from it? This is familiar ground the courts have ruled in favor of
the consumers on.
The wet dream of software companies is "pay per use", ie you actually don't
get ANYTHING tangible for your money just permission for a specific use.
Linux looks better and better every day.
4 Dec
4 Dec
2:58 p.m.
At 01:28 PM 12/3/99 -0800, Mike Ford wrote:
Well, I agree. It would be like buying a Sony music CD that had a shrink
wrap license restricting it from being played on anything but Sony
equipment,and certainly not on an MP3 player. Sounds like Divx.
I haven't paid any attention to the fine print on a Playstation CD,
does it actually contain language that restricts its use?
I see where
this is going, though - it's similar to a shrink-wrap
license. When I buy a Nintendo cart, am I in effect signing a
contract that says I won't run it on an emulator?
How is this different from buying a CD and making a cassette for your
walkman from it? This is familiar ground the courts have ruled in favor of
the consumers on. The wet dream of software companies is "pay per
use", ie you actually don't
get ANYTHING tangible for your money just permission for a specific use.
Linux looks better and better every day.
Microsoft has come to close to this in the past two years. I think
2000 will be the year they actually start charging by subscription
(time-period licenses) and I can easily see the industry migrating
to a license scheme that requires periodic communication with
the Internet to fetch new keys.
- John
8992
days inactive
8994
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
eric＠brouhaha.com -
Glenatacme＠aol.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com