getting a multi cart? need a list of publicly released roms?

[pimpmaul69]

Suddenly the C64 scene cracker groups who grab freely available mini games, add a cheat screen and an intro twice as long as the actual game and proudly release their latest cracked games, seem like sane people compared to those who rip and sell other people's homebrews. At least the C64 cracks can be downloaded for free, just like the original game could.

the cracked c64 games are annoying. You can have 10 different cracked versions of the same game and trying to find which ones work properly in emulation can be a pain in the arse.

[pimpmaul69]

Since the list contains demos and pre-release editions, I believe it is missing some stuff published on the INTVPROG mailing list. Notable things like, DKINTY, Dancing Baby test, Carl's sound effects demo, Arnauld's demo (as in the old-school, Amiga/C=64 demoscene), Snowkiller (a hack on Arnauld's Snow demo), etc.

 

I don't know to what extent you want to include those, but once you cross the line with multiple test versions of "Pac-Man" and "Mickeys hello world," I think you're pretty much committed to every variant. Actually, pretty much committed.

i tried listing the newest file of stuff released. No sense clustering this list full of a ton of versions of one game. I did list old skool. Is the intvprog mailing list something accessible to be considered publicly released?

[+DZ-Jay]

thats some fucked up shit right there. It also ruins it for people like me who will try to test every binary released and give feedback. For some people their games become a success this way because of the feedback they get by publicly releasing the files. Its a shame to hear that happened. I hope nobody here ever does that.

Then I'm confused. That Pac-Man ROM mentioned multiple times, I thought it was mine, which I never released "publicly," just posted on the INTVPROG mailing list.

 

The list is public, though you have to subscribe to it. Also, it is intended to be for programmers to discuss Intellivision programming topics.

 

However, posting to the INTVPROG list is no different than posting to the Intellivision Programming forum here in AA; so it's strange that you include the "raycasting demo" but not the "dancing baby" one.

Edited October 22, 2015 by DZ-Jay

[pimpmaul69]

Then I'm confused. That Pac-Man ROM mentioned multiple times, I thought it was mine, which I never released "publicly," just posted on the INTVPROG mailing list.

 

The list is public, though you have to subscribe to it. Also, it is intended to be for programmers to discuss Intellivision programming topics.

 

However, posting to the INTVPROG list is no different than posting to the Intellivision Programming forum here in AA; so it's strange that you include the "raycasting demo" but not the "dancing baby" one.

the raycasting demo has recently been getting updates here on aa which is why i mentioned it.

[freewheel]

 

With all due respect, I don't think you understand quite how Copyright works, nor what the term "grey area" means. What you are describing is still pretty crisp-clear.

 

I understand quite fully how copyright works. You may be mistaking me for someone else based on your later conclusions about my view.

 

 

Exactly. You did not acquire permission from the author, you did not get a license, so you know you are in the wrong. Unless, of course, you do not know... then it's not "grey," it's just ignorance. It is still very clearly infringement.

 

It's "grey" because you yourself make comments referring to the public domain, which is essentially a legal fiction under today's laws. There is no actual mechanism of placing something in the public domain voluntarily. You also post (both here and on your page) that it's cool that I download, play, and share Christmas Carol, but legally, I have absolutely no legal protection if I choose to do so. I'm operating entirely within a grey area - I'm only getting away with it because you're not suing me. Unless you've actually gone and posted a license somewhere that I've missed, which is somehow being transmitted with the ROM as it's shared. Or by "share", did you mean let my cousin come over and play the ROM copy that I downloaded?

 

All of the ROMs on intellivision.us - legal or no? How would one find out?

 

Not quite as crisp-clear as it seems at first.

 

 

If you're point is that, since we can't enforce our copyrights, then there's no point in arguing over it -- or even mentioning them -- and we should just live with the fact that it's a free for all; then again I say it is most definitely not a "grey area". Your view is stark: fuck it, let's do it anyway since we can get away with it.

 

This can't possibly be the interpretation of what I posted. If anything, I'm arguing that no one, ever, can share a ROM - regardless of the author's intentions. Copyright has no allowance for anything of the sort. Even downloading a copy of GoatNom that I posted in the development threads is technically copyright infringement (albeit an absurdly insignificant amount) - but sending a copy to your friend? That absolutely IS infringing.

 

It's a grey area because many authors kinda-sorta give permission to kinda-sorta do a few things that legally, are copyright infringement. I pulled Mattel ROMs from my Intellivision Lives and Rocks discs, to load onto the LTO Flash! for PRGE. Fair use? Probably. Except that for one of them, I had to extract from an Xbox disc, thereby almost certainly violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. But Keith has given the nod to people using those ROMs in emulators and such, albeit not exactly formally. I also put Christmas Carol on the cart, because you've indicated in the past that you're happy to see more people playing it and I assumed you'd at least tolerate it, if not be tickled. So - legal or no? As the law is written, absolutely not.

 

It's only black & white if you never, EVER touch a ROM file that you yourself did not create. Which is fine, but the implication there is that multicarts are essentially illegal for everyone but the handful of developers who use them.

 

[+DZ-Jay]

I understand quite fully how copyright works. You may be mistaking me for someone else based on your later conclusions about my view.

 

I based my comments on things you said in this thread. If I mischaracterised something, it was not on purpose, so feel free to point it out and I'll address it.

 

It's "grey" because you yourself make comments referring to the public domain, which is essentially a legal fiction under today's laws. There is no actual mechanism of placing something in the public domain voluntarily.

 

 

I understand that it's de rigueur to put the hate on intellectual property rights and to ridicule legal protections and processes nowadays, but often the echo chambers around the Interwebz are not necessarily right.

 

If the rights to copy and distribution fall solely on the author, by fiat, and he is free to do as he wishes with them (as prescribed by Copyright law), then it stands to reason that he can as well abdicate them.

 

 

You also post (both here and on your page) that it's cool that I download, play, and share Christmas Carol, but legally, I have absolutely no legal protection if I choose to do so.

You do, you have my express permission, which is all you need. If I were to sue you (ha! ha! no, really, just follow me), you can point at the very clear invitation to do so from the web site, or to the myriad posts in which I re-itarate so.

 

Copyrights arguments are settled on a case-by-case basis, based solely on the circumstances of each case (and precedent in case the circumstances have been visited before).

 

• How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?

 

Hint: All you need is permission of use.

 

I'm operating entirely within a grey area - I'm only getting away with it because you're not suing me.

 

Not really. Copyrights are precisely that: the rights to copy (which include download and execution). I can do as I please with those rights, including granting permission. (See above.)

 

Unless you've actually gone and posted a license somewhere that I've missed, which is somehow being transmitted with the ROM as it's shared.

 

And by license, I suppose you mean one of those terse and inscrutable jargo-filled EULAs that mostly relieve the owner of liability as opposed of granting much permissions. Right? You should know that EULAs written in legalese are just ONE way to confer license. Pretty much anything written, which you can prove was by me, granting permission constitute a license. And I say written because it's easier to convey and prove. If you have witnesses to a "wink and a handshake" you can defend yourself as well.

 

In my case, you have a rather clear representation of permission in the form of an invitation for download and play (for non-commercial use) on a public web site, and a comment to that effect on the start-up screen of the ROM.

 

 

All of the ROMs on intellivision.us - legal or no? How would one find out?

 

I would say that, only those to which the site owner got express permission from the author or copyrights owner, are legal. The rest are not. You can ask him if you are interested, and keep track yourself.

 

However, I grant you, this is not easy if sites like that muddle the waters further by commingling stuff that is legal (original works produced by him or to which he was granted permission to distribute) and stuff he ripped from somewhere else. Nonetheless the responsibility of obtaining rights to it lie within the requestor.

 

This is part of the problem that many would-be artists have when attempting to get permission to reproduce or cover an original work.

 

• http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#whoowns

 

Not quite as crisp-clear as it seems at first.

It is not quite crisp-clear to find the owner in order to request permission, yes. However, if you did not get permission and you did not make it, it is clearly not yours to copy. This is the fundamental point I'm trying to make.

 

You can go ahead and do it anyway, and you'll probably never hear about it. However, you'd be taking a risk, albeit a small one, that someone will someday make a claim on it.

 

This can't possibly be the interpretation of what I posted. If anything, I'm arguing that no one, ever, can share a ROM - regardless of the author's intentions. Copyright has no allowance for anything of the sort. Even downloading a copy of GoatNom that I posted in the development threads is technically copyright infringement (albeit an absurdly insignificant amount) - but sending a copy to your friend? That absolutely IS infringing.

 

I have no idea where you got that notion from. Copyrights are meaningless if the owner cannot exert his -- you know -- rights! And exerting his rights include giving permission to copy and use in whichever way he wants.

 

It's a grey area because many authors kinda-sorta give permission to kinda-sorta do a few things that legally, are copyright infringement.

 

 

They are only infringement if they go outside the permissions granted the user. In other words, if you do something with it without permission, you are infringing.

 

• http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#infringement

 

I pulled Mattel ROMs from my Intellivision Lives and Rocks discs, to load onto the LTO Flash! for PRGE. Fair use? Probably. Except that for one of them, I had to extract from an Xbox disc, thereby almost certainly violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. But Keith has given the nod to people using those ROMs in emulators and such, albeit not exactly formally. I also put Christmas Carol on the cart, because you've indicated in the past that you're happy to see more people playing it and I assumed you'd at least tolerate it, if not be tickled. So - legal or no? As the law is written, absolutely not.

I'd like to know which law is that, which does not allow a copyright owner grant license to limited use.

 

It's only black & white if you never, EVER touch a ROM file that you yourself did not create. Which is fine, but the implication there is that multicarts are essentially illegal for everyone but the handful of developers who use them.

 

I say it is black & white because to me it's quite simple: Did you create it? If not, do you have express permission to use it from the Copyrights owner? No, then you are not allowed to use it. Full stop.

 

Conversely, if you created it or received authorisation to do something with the work, knock yourself out.

 

-dZ.

[+Rick Reynolds]

Then I'm confused. That Pac-Man ROM mentioned multiple times, I thought it was mine, which I never released "publicly," just posted on the INTVPROG mailing list.

 

Did you mean these?

 

53. pac-man - easy

54. pac-man - ghosts always edible

55. pac-man - ghosts stay blue

I assumed they were hacks of the Atarisoft/INTV Pacman rom that was posted in AA some months back. I talked about them briefly in one of the Intellivisionaries episodes.

All this discussion of copyright / IP is definitely making me want to have some kind of coverage on the podcast about this topic. We've discussed doing so a number of times. I'm guessing having SD-cart(s) more readily available will put such concerns more front-and-center again.

[Games For Your Intellivision]

 

 

Did you mean these?

 

53. pac-man - easy

54. pac-man - ghosts always edible

55. pac-man - ghosts stay blue

I assumed they were hacks of the Atarisoft/INTV Pacman rom that was posted in AA some months back. I talked about them briefly in one of the Intellivisionaries episodes.

All this discussion of copyright / IP is definitely making me want to have some kind of coverage on the podcast about this topic. We've discussed doing so a number of times. I'm guessing having SD-cart(s) more readily available will put such concerns more front-and-center again.

 

 

No problem! LTO Flash! has no SD card.

[+Rick Reynolds]

No problem! LTO Flash! has no SD card.

I've got SD on the brain today, been trying to get the Atari 7800 SD-card based cart.

[pimpmaul69]

added new games at the end of the list on the first post

[+DZ-Jay]

 

 

Did you mean these?

 

53. pac-man - easy

54. pac-man - ghosts always edible

55. pac-man - ghosts stay blue

I assumed they were hacks of the Atarisoft/INTV Pacman rom that was posted in AA some months back. I talked about them briefly in one of the Intellivisionaries episodes.

 

Ah! My mistake. I confused them, since pimpmaul69 mentioned demos and pre-release ROMs.

[pimpmaul69]

 

Ah! My mistake. I confused them, since pimpmaul69 mentioned demos and pre-release ROMs.

i did just add a pac-man demo that you had posted. i think you said the ghosts dont move yet in it

[+DZ-Jay]

i did just add a pac-man demo that you had posted. i think you said the ghosts dont move yet in it

 

LOL! It's absolutely useless. All you can do is move Pac-Man around the screen and eat dots. The Ghosts don't move. Not really a "demo" except to test the control and cornering, which were the basis for Christmas Carol.

 

I'll provide a list of other ROMs released in the INTVPROG list so that you may add them to the list.

[+Tarzilla]

 

another aa member and i have trifled the internet looking for all the roms we could find. here is a release of the publicly released roms we have found. the sdk-1600 demo roms are not included in this list. some of these are demos or beta roms.

 

1. 4-tris

2. 50 shades of eric and keith

3. ac2013

4. alligator swamp

5. balloons vs the clowns of christmas presents

6. battlestar galactica - space battle hack

7. bea arthurs funbags

8. bump n jump - intelligentvision

9. castle

10. caves of kroz

11. chat v1

12. choplifter - paid - intellivision.us

13. christmas carol vs the ghost of christmas presents

14. clowns & balloons

15. crazy bus

16. deep zone gorf

17. defender of the crown demo

18. donkey kong arcade - intellivision.us

19. dk arcade - paid - carl mueller

20. d2k arcade - paid - carl mueller

21. doom - joke rom

22. firegirl vs zombies

23. fubar

24. go for the gold - complete

25. goat nom

26. gosub

27. hotel bunny

28. hover bovver - demo

29. intellibullet

30. intellipongola

31. intykninty

32. inty lander

33. inty paki

34. inty os

35. istar

36. joystick diagnostic

37. king of the mountain - paid - intellivision.us

38. mad drivin

39. mars mini games demo

40. mastermind

41. match 5 demo

42. mickeys hello world

43. minehunter

44. ms. nightstalker - paid - intellivision.us

45. ms. pac-man - paid - carl mueller

46. nasl soccer 2x15 minutes

47. nba basketball 4x8 minutes

48. next street

49. nfl football 4x8 minutes

50. nhl hockey 3x10 minutes

51. number blaster

52. old skool

53. pac-man - easy

54. pac-man - ghosts always edible

55. pac-man - ghosts stay blue

56. piggy bank - not yet released

57. ping

58. pong

59. pop tart

60. press 8

61. raycast demo

62. rick dangerous

63. robot blast

64. rocketeer demo

65. rpn calculator

66. same game and robots -intellivoice - paid - intellivision.us

67. santas helper

68. the secret government waffle project

69. shape escape

70. shark shark 2

71. shark shark 2 - deathmatch edition

72. simon 4

73. simple shoot em up

74. slam dunk super pro basketball 4x8 minutes

75. slap shot super pro hockey 3x10 minutes

76. snake

77. snow

78. soccer 2 2x15 minutes

79. space cunt - paid - intellivision.us

80. space patrol teaser edition

81. space versus

82. spice patrol

83. spirit v1.0

84. stack em

85. stickman

86. stonix

87. super chef bt - paid - intellivision.us

88. super nasl soccer 2x15 minutes

89. super pixel bros

90. super pro football 4x8 minutes

91. super pro tennis - paid - intellivision.us

92. tag-a-long todd v3.13 - intellivoice version

93. thunder castle - infinite time to kill the dragon

94. tic-tac-toe - crazyboss' version

95. tic-tac-toe - valter prette's version

96. tris

97. trollish comment generator

98. unlucky pony - beta

99. vectron - level 99

100. world cup soccer 2x15 minutes

101. xb one simulator

102. zombie marbles

103. pac-man demo - james pujals

104. nightstalker - black background

105. nightstalker - robot never fires

106.nightstalker - no bg music

 

Feel free to add the Inty-B Intro from the What Can an Intellivision Do? threadInty-B Intro.rom.

 

The source is included with the IntyBASIC release versions in the CONTRIB folder, but here is the compiled ROM, rights are given for free for anyone to use in an emulator or on an SD/Flash cart, but rights are not given re-sell the ROM or place on a cartridge for sale.

[+Tarzilla]

Also, maybe the PAID roms should be grouped together as a separate list rather than mixed in so they stand out better.

[freewheel]

 

No problem! LTO Flash! has no SD card.

 

Given how I connect things to my computers, I kinda think of it as an SD-based cart that comes with its own built-in reader.

 

[freewheel]

Also, maybe the PAID roms should be grouped together as a separate list rather than mixed in so they stand out better.

 

The "traditional" grouping used to be: Hack, Demo, Fix, Trainer, Homebrew, and then commercial releases grouped by country (sometimes company).

 

I agree, Gratis vs Paid would be nice. We definitely should have Hacks and Demos in their own categories. I hope like hell someone doesn't count CrazyBus in the same category as Christmas Carol.

[pimpmaul69]

 

I hope like hell someone doesn't count CrazyBus in the same category as Christmas Carol.

maybe some of us jumped on the crazy bus and never got off so we cant tell the difference. i will seperate the paid from the rest. I will have to figure out what alls what with the rest of it.

[+DZ-Jay]

maybe some of us jumped on the crazy bus and never got off so we cant tell the difference. i will seperate the paid from the rest. I will have to figure out what alls what with the rest of it.

 

I agree that free vs. paid is a good way to classify them, especially if you're going to include links for people to download.

 

I guess it's my own fault for giving my game ROM away, if it lands on a group full of half-assed demos which constitutes all the free ROMs.

[+DZ-Jay]

I want to play "Joystick Diagnostick," it sounds like a fun game!

[catsfolly]

 

I agree that free vs. paid is a good way to classify them, especially if you're going to include links for people to download.

 

I guess it's my own fault for giving my game ROM away, if it lands on a group full of half-assed demos which constitutes all the free ROMs.

I'll have you know that all my demo ROMs are "derriere-complete" !

[+DZ-Jay]

I'll have you know that all my demo ROMs are "derriere-complete" !

 

LOL! I didn't mean yours, of course! Maybe that's a new category we should consider: derriere-complete vs. half-assed demos.

[mr_me]

I hesitated doing this, but here's some comments on copyright. I think DZ-Jay and freewheel are both right.

I'll start by saying that copyright law only seems to matter when a certain amount of money is at stake. I don't think there is enough money with this stuff for lawyers to care. Another question is are these acts right or wrong? Respect for the game creator and/or copyright owner should be considered.

 

1. Copying a game off of a disc or an original cartridge that you own and playing them with an emulator on your computer or your own flash memory cartridge.

I don't think "fair use" is clearly defined and might be up for interpretation ("grey"). Usually copyright owners permit the making of one copy for backup purposes only. If the game rom is buried inside of a program or protected disc, is that not "circumvention of a technological barrier". I think this violates copyright, but is it wrong? Currently the copyright owner has the games available in a flashback or Xbox format. Most people doing this are buying flashbacks, so Is this causing the loss of sales?

 

2. Games on Intellivision.us

Usually if someone has the permission of the copyright owner they would clearly say so. Any unauthorised distribution of copyrighted games and derivative products (boxes, overlays, modified versions) is clearly a violation. But is it wrong? I think its great that we can experience the Intellivision game Illusions and that I could play the original Intellivision tennis against the computer. I'll bet the creator of Illusions would be happy that it has seen the light of day, and what would the programmer of the original Intellivision Tennis think about more people enjoying the game. The copyright owner may not care or even know of the existence of some these games. They may have been contacted and not responded. However, I might be uncomfortable paying for unauthorized copyrighted games and materials. I understand that possibly some money was originally paid to obtain this stuff, if so that would be unfortunate. I also understand that a lot of effort goes into game debugging and making improvements. And producing cartridges, overlays and boxes cost money. The money collected might be considered cost recovery. Does it matter if they are not making a profit?

 

3. Works created under pen names, aliases, nick names etc are automatically copyrighted to that person. I previously mentioned copyright applies even if the creator or owner is unknown. The creator and copyright owner should be respected concerning their works. Some have expressed their wishes, posted under this very forum topic. Most people want to do the right thing.

[pimpmaul69]

i fixed the first post. in the everything else section please feel free to let me know any games that are known to be complete that i did not put in the complete section. i will also start working on the links for them as well

Edited October 24, 2015 by pimpmaul69

[freewheel]

DZ already mentioned this, but the Dancing Baby demo needs to be included. I've never actually stumbled upon the ROM, so I don't know if it's available - but it's a pretty decent demo.