Nice, clear official statement against ROM piracy (for future reference)

I just happened upon this legal FAQ on Nintendo's corporate website, and I thought it was actually well put together:

<a href="http://nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html" target="_blank">http://nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html</a>

I assume some folks may have already seen it. I just figured some people may want to reach for an already well-articulated argument, and here it is.

To bad Playmore doesn't put their own together (well, actually they probably would embarrass themselves with Engrish) -if someone wanted to do something funny they could run the Nintendo FAQ through an engrish translator to see the Playmore version.

<small>[ February 17, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Bobak ]</small>

yes, I read that about 1 year ago.. its nice.

Except.. once you start talking to their legal department... they talk in Grey... and skip the black and white.


†B†V†

Bluevoodu:
Except.. once you start talking to their legal department... they talk in Grey... and skip the black and white.

Click to expand...

Cool, like how?

I would have to forward you the emails at some point.....

It was related to graphics that I was creating.. and their rules on using midi files that someone had created of Zelda music.

I cannot give you specific examples off the top of my head, just the "lingo" was rather confusing and seemed that you could do some stuff... that might cross the line..... but you couldn't actually do it.. if that makes sense to you?

They just never had a real decisive answer on what I could and could not do.

†B†V†

Here's my favorite part:

"The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers. As is the case with any business or industry, when its products become available for free, the revenue stream supporting that industry is threatened. Such emulators have the potential to significantly damage a worldwide entertainment software industry which generates over $15 billion annually, and tens of thousands of jobs."

The reason I think it's the best part? Because, check this out, most ROMS people download are for NES/SNES. Guess what? You can't fucking buy those fucking games anywhere except flee markets and eBay. Does Nintendo, or any of their licensees, ever see money from these sales? NO. So what's the difference from Joe the College Kid spending $20 on a used copy of an old ass game, and the same Joe the College Kid downloading the ROM? Nothing, except he limits the profit of the person trying to sell the cart.

So do I agree with emualtion? No. BUT, the only time it is REALLY a problem is when people who download shit for systems where the games are still available. THAT'S taking away from the $15 billion dollar industry, not Joe downloading a game that hasn't been available at retail for 10-17 years.

there are still small-medium buy-sell companies that sell these games... and it is still a good market.. used games that is.


†B†V†

Very interesting.

I do not think that a Playmore or SNK’s legal warning like that would have avoided the trouble they had with emulation. The only good remedy would have been to get into legal assessment and action before, I think it is well known and quite evident that emulators are illegal, and if you have doubts about it that is what the lawyers are for.

<small>[ February 18, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Pep ]</small>

Bluevoodu:
there are still small-medium buy-sell companies that sell these games... and it is still a good market.. used games that is.


†B†V†

Click to expand...

I agree, but adding that point to Nintendo's arguement it sort of a moot one, since I am in serious doubt that the $15 billion inductry they are talking about factors in the sales of the used games from any online/offline reseller.

Like I said, I don't agree with emulation and will search out a cart/CD/DVD for anything if I want it bad enough.

I will admit, however, to downloading Neo ROMS at the beginning of last year to see if they were worth spending my $$$ on. They were (of course!), so I deleted the ROMs and bought the MVS carts and continue to do so. Does that make me an evil person? I guess so, since it was illegal, but I, unlike a lot of the ROMMERS, went out and actually put my money where my gaming time is spent.

<small>[ February 18, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: slerch666 ]</small>

I like their point.... It is illegal to download roms... but it is legal to have back-up copies of your originals... still owned by you, in case of damage to the original..etc.

so, how do you get back-ups unless you download the rom?

How do you get a back-up if it is illegal to have a game copying device?

†B†V†

The reason I think it's the best part? Because, check this out, most ROMS people download are for NES/SNES. Guess what? You can't fucking buy those fucking games anywhere except flee markets and eBay. Does Nintendo, or any of their licensees, ever see money from these sales? NO. So what's the difference from Joe the College Kid spending $20 on a used copy of an old ass game, and the same Joe the College Kid downloading the ROM? Nothing, except he limits the profit of the person trying to sell the cart.

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about this not affecting them that much. Many SNES games are making its way to the GBA. Then you've got the aspect that Nintendo have been putting out NES games on the GC/GBA in the form of "Bonus material".

Granted, it's not like "Nintendo" isn't making tons of money from them, but it would affect them from, say, putting out a "greatest hits" compilation.

So do I agree with emualtion?

Click to expand...

Again you don't have to equate emulation to piracy.

There are plenty of examples of legal emulation:
-> "collection" disks of arcade games (Williams, Namco, Capcom)
-> Legal Amiga Emulators with a licensed OS allowed people to transition to a faster system.
-> PPC-based MacOS's had 68000 emulators built in to allow users from using their old 68k based software.
...etc...

No. BUT, the only time it is REALLY a problem is when people who download shit for systems where the games are still available. THAT'S taking away from the $15 billion dollar industry, not Joe downloading a game that hasn't been available at retail for 10-17 years.

Click to expand...

Just because it's not in retail, doesn't mean that they intend to keep it that way. Games can make a reappearence in other forms including compilation disks, reappearance on similar budget/portable hardware, etc.

Anyway, just feeling a bit nit-picky. wink

slerch666:
Because, check this out, most ROMS people download are for NES/SNES. Guess what? You can't fucking buy those fucking games anywhere except flee markets and eBay. Does Nintendo, or any of their licensees, ever see money from these sales? NO. So what's the difference from Joe the College Kid spending $20 on a used copy of an old ass game, and the same Joe the College Kid downloading the ROM? Nothing, except he limits the profit of the person trying to sell the cart.

Click to expand...

Well, there's a flaw in there, Nintendo answers it with really dry legal language (I'll highlight the key areas, then explain it below):

-------
QUESTION:
People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by Making Old Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. This Does Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's the Problem?

ANSWER
The problem is that it's illegal. Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets.
---------------

It boils down to: If you create an intellectual property right (be it game, song, movie, painting, drawing, etc) -you, the creator, should be the only one to benefit from it (unless you sell the right to another).

It makes sense, and it's a fundamental legal principle.

- it also has a lot of practical sense: If you draw something, then 10 years later people are using it without your permission, you're damn certain to be angry about it.

Ideas are supposed to last a lifetime (seriously, theoritically they make copyright protection last your lifetime -although corporations are currently trying to extend it)

That basic theory really defends basic, natural rights: you should get all the benefits of what you put work into and what you create.

Going on a hypothetical situation:
If people really want these older NES games, they will put such a demand on those carts still in existance that they will re-issue them on newer systems (remember "Super Mario All-Stars" on SNES?).

Bluevoodu:
so, how do you get back-ups unless you download the rom?

How do you get a back-up if it is illegal to have a game copying device?

Click to expand...

Therein lies their point (they confusingly state it in two separate sections).

Point 1
You can have a copy of a game as long as you copy it yourself from your original, legal copy.
--> That means downloading an already converted rom is illegal: It's like someone copied a DVD/VHS tape, left it on a shelf, then you came and picked it up. Regardless of the intent of the initial copier, you're copy is always illegal

Point 2
Because of how they can be used, all game copiers that copy games onto floppies (or other disks) or computers are illegal (since they are so easily used for making illicit copies).
--> this is a statutory law, probably pushed through by entertainment companies years ago in the days of the Beta/VHS debate.

So as you can see, there is a contradiction that essentially locks you out of ever making a copy loco

Alright, I concede that companies MAY do a "greatest hits" type thing with their releases. But do you really think we'll see things like Kid Icarus, Snake Rattle N Roll, Cobra Triangle, Wrecking Crew, Urban Legend and so on, come out for the GCN? I seriously doubt it. And the only game in that whole lot that would even POSSIBLY receive an "update" would be Kid Icarus.

I understand their reasoning, but to a certain degree big companies can be WAY too greedy. I mean, you said people were working to get the copyright extended, well I hate to tell you, they already HAVE extended it. Why? Because of some stupid ass piece of shit fucked up Steam Boat Willy monkey fucking mouse. Are you going to tell me that Disney still uses the mouse from Steam Boat Willy today? No. They changed the mouse's appearance and called him Mickey. Why then, shouldn't people be free to use that mouse, much the way we can use and abuse Shakespeare?

Sorry for that little rant, but that type of stuff really pisses me off.

Anyway, I agree that companies should be able to profit from the stuff that they make. But I think the time limit is WAY to high. Patents run out in what, 14 years (I could be wrong)? So a company like the one I work for is only able to profit from something WE'VE created for 14 years before it is basically public domain. That is seriously fucked up in my opinion. You can say that video games and the like are "artistic" creations, but the same amount of work, if not MORE, went into our patents. But since greedy shit ass companies like Disney don't need patents to survive, the length of time for patent protection will likely never be raised. Not that all big companies, or companies in general, just some more so than others. Why do they protect all of their copyrights so vigorously? Because the whole company appears to lack REAL talent. Hell, they stole the Lion King (Kimba the White Lion) and Atlantis (Nadia) from Anime and won't even admit it!

And as far as copyrights go, I think if an INDIVIDUAL creates something, say like Mickey Mouse, that INDIVIDUAL should be able to use and abuse it as he sees fit for 75 years or for as long as he lives. If a company does it, since they have greater resources in general, it should only last for the 30 (could have been less than 30, but I can't remember) years that the ORIGINAL Constitution called for. Why do I say that? How about because there is no reason for them to innovate if they can keep reusing all of the stuff they had before... Like DISNEY! 101 Dalmations 2. Pocahontas 2. Beauty & the Beast X-Mas Specials. Lion King 2. Aladdin 2. Need I go on? If a real world company tried that shit, they'd go under quick because their products aren't innovative. Company like Disney does it and it's "artistic." Nintendo is the same way really.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. You are correct. ROMS ARE illegal. I don't use them, but I won't be helping any Bullshit company, except Playmore, fight ROMMERs. Why Playmore? Because they own everything SNK, and as we all know SNK went under because of a lack of funds. Nintendo, Sony and MS don't have THAT particualr problem, do they?

slerch666:
I will admit, however, to downloading Neo ROMS at the beginning of last year to see if they were worth spending my $$$ on. They were (of course!), so I deleted the ROMs and bought the MVS carts and continue to do so. Does that make me an evil person? I guess so, since it was illegal, but I, unlike a lot of the ROMMERS, went out and actually put my money where my gaming time is spent.

Click to expand...

I understand your position. The problem is that there are a LOT of people who use ROMs irresponsibly. If that weren't the case, we probably wouldn't be seeing as much of this. If I were a game company, I'd be thinking just as Nintendo is. I mean, come on, look how much fucking money is being lost! What do you expect?

i don't know about all of this but really i think that people should just realize that roms are really really wrong and companies shouldn't need statements realesed to say this