Emulators, ROMs, Warez, and other copyright issues

[DZComposer]

Just a reminder about the policy regarding copyright here at SFO.

1. Emulators:

Discussion of emulators is OK, provided this discussion is about emulation itself or emulation theory. IE, in the context of running code written for one architecture on another one, NOT in the context of pirating games.

2. ROMs and Disc Images:

ROMs and Disc Images of commercial games, even Star Fox games, are NOT allowed to be discussed, linked to, or have instructions posted on how to obtain them. THIS INCLUDES ROM HACKS, such as those hi-res SF64 ROMs floating around out there.

Homebrew software is fine, provided there is clear, good-faith, documentation on the linked site that the software contains no pirated code.

3. Warez:

Absolutely no discussion of Warez is allowed. "Warez" is hacker slang for pirated software.

4. Videos and Music:

Unless it is Star Fox related, do not post any music or video files that you do not either own the copyright to yourself or have permission to distribute. YouTube links are fine, as YouTube has it's own copyright policy. This is mainly referring to straight file links, IE MP3 or MP4 files. Legitimate Fair Use is an exception.

5. Text:

Don't post any writing that you do not own the copyright to yourself or have permission to distribute. This includes song lyrics. Legitimate Fair Use is an exception.

[Milkyway64]

2. ROMs and Disc Images:

THIS INCLUDES ROM HACKS, such as those hi-res SF64 ROMs floating around out there.

Clarify a little on this, if you would? My knowledge of the matter says that patches and hacks themselves are cool, otherwise places Super Mario World Central would have been nuked. I bring this up because I was actually planning on talking about rom hacks for Super Metroid and SMW itself eventually (on the top of the list is Golden Dawn, a Super Metroid hack I hated due to it's overboard nonlinearity.)

In a nutshell, patches and discussions of mods are kosher, distributing and discussion of where the roms you patch these to are not. Does the same work here, or do you really mean we can't talk about rom hacks like this one?

[DZComposer]

I put that in there because ROM hacks encourage piracy by their very nature. As much as I think our copyright system needs reform, it is unethical for me to allow piracy to be encouraged.

And no, they're technically not kosher, because they're still the developer's code. Just not the full program.

As far as ROMs, if you have to have in your possession code from a commercial game, it's no-go. Even if the hack drastically changes things and doesn't require the original ROM, it still has original developer code in it.

Nintendo doesn't often bust-up fansites, but when they do, ROMs are usually a part of the reason. I'm not willing to take that risk. Other sites may be willing, but I am not. Believe me, the last thing I want is to get sued.

[Milkyway64]

True, but ROMs themselves are not illegal. If you own the game, you are allowed to have backups and thus, these patches. Legally, you can also have them if you do not own the game as long as it's disposed of in under 24 hours. I'd provide links and stuff, but I'm feeling lazy.

So you're final on this, then? No angry Golden Dawn reveiws for me? =(

[DZComposer]

True, but ROMs themselves are not illegal. If you own the game, you are allowed to have backups and thus, these patches. Legally, you can also have them if you do not own the game as long as it's disposed of in under 24 hours. I'd provide links and stuff, but I'm feeling lazy.

Actually, that's just a myth. The backup argument was tested in court and struck down in Atari v. JS&A. The court ruled that data on ROM chips is less volatile that magnetic media, which the backup provision was written for, and thus the backup provision did not apply.

The "24 hour rule" does not exist in copyright law at all for any media. I have no clue where it came from, but it would surely fail in court as there is no time that allows you to "try" media before you have to pay for it.

[Robert Monroe]

How i it even illegal to have ROMs of games that are -out of print-. I understand piracy, but you can hardly call it that when the game is 20 years old, much less an ISP patch for said 20 year old game.

[DZComposer]

There is no abandonment provision in copyright law like there is in trademark law. Thus, even if a work is out of print, it is still protected and pirating it can get you in trouble.

Sometimes, though, the real owner of the copyright is not clear. A company called SCO found that out the hard way when they sued IBM over Linux, claiming there was UNIX code in Linux, and SCO claims that Caldera acquired the UNIX copyright (Caldera became SCO), but Novell (who makes SuSe Linux, BTW) objected and sued SCO claiming Novell owned the UNIX copyright. The count agreed with Novell. SCO is now being sold-off in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. IBM got off.

Now, I personally think that out-of-print works should become public domain, but that will never happen because Disney makes too much money off their "Disney Vault" model (take it off the market for 10 years and then re-introduce it) that is based around this lack of abandonment.

Yeah, it sucks, but copyright law is severely skewed in favor of media companies.

[Milkyway64]

Alrighty then, so the legality of ROMs aside, we're back at square one about why we can't just forbid the discussion and distribution of the ROMs themselves and allow discussion of mods? Lots of forums do this and while yes, the very nature of it may encourage the piracy, I don't believe the patches themselves are a problem. For example, the fan translation of Mother 3 got lots of praise from NINTENDO ITSELF despite being an unofficial modification of their game.

[DZComposer]

Let me put it this way: If I get sued, SFO ceases to exist.

Believe it or not, my life does NOT revolve around SFO. If I get a C&D and am faced with the choice between shutting down SFO or an expensive lawsuit, SFO goes down.

Thus, I want to reduce the risk of that happening. ROMs can get me sued, so I don't want anything to do with them here.

SMWCentral.net may be willing to take the risk, but I am not.

It may seem harmless to you, but when it's your ass on the line, that perspective changes.

[Milkyway64]

Alrighty then. Understood.

[Guest FoXXX]

Let me put it this way: If I get sued, SFO ceases to exist.

Believe it or not, my life does NOT revolve around SFO. If I get a C&D and am faced with the choice between shutting down SFO or an expensive lawsuit, SFO goes down.

Thus, I want to reduce the risk of that happening. ROMs can get me sued, so I don't want anything to do with them here.

SMWCentral.net may be willing to take the risk, but I am not.

It may seem harmless to you, but when it's your ass on the line, that perspective changes.

I'm glad you think that way, ROMs aren't worth getting this place shut down.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I know of another site where that happened, and the proprietor(s) got sued, and the site did shut down.  You're right, not worth the risk. 

[Tiberius]

If you haven't noticed, the fair use agreement now says if you paid for it, you can do anything with it except sell it for cash, which includes ripping DVDs. This has not been confirmed for games, but music and videos are safe according to law and the DMCA.

[DZComposer]

If you haven't noticed, the fair use agreement now says if you paid for it, you can do anything with it except sell it for cash, which includes ripping DVDs. This has not been confirmed for games, but music and videos are safe according to law and the DMCA.

Wrong.

Fair use only applies in very limited circumstances, IE academic research, criticism, etc. Also parody to some degree is fair use.

The recent DMCA exceptions were granted to fix a problem where the DMCA eliminated fair use on media that has copy protection. The recent decision now allows some fair use in the areas of criticism and academic research.

The DMCA was NOT amended. The law provided for anti-circumvention exceptions to be set by the Library of Congress.

You can't go willy-nilly all over the internet with copyrighted works.

I wish what you said were true, but Disney wouldn't stand for it and Disney owns congressmen.

[Robert Monroe]

But couldn't hacks be discussed so long as they are not linked too and otherwise provided? Sounds like fair use to me, considering you're just -talking- about it.

[Nova]

lol, Is telling people to talk to me against this?

**Is teh king of Pirates**

[Guest Julius Quasar]

But couldn't hacks be discussed so long as they are not linked too and otherwise provided? Sounds like fair use to me, considering you're just -talking- about it.

DZ doesn't wanna take that chance (not that I'd blame him).  People are VERY litigious nowadays...

[Dragzilla66]

DZ doesn't wanna take that chance (not that I'd blame him).  People are VERY litigious nowadays...

Very true. Plus downloading something that you don't own (referring to games with copyright) or didn't getting permission from the company or owner is illegal..