An Idea for Crowd Funding: Making 2600 Reproductions

[vidak]

I would love to see this happen.

 

But I am also a strong believer in the fact these games ARE someone else's work; and say what one wants about only charging enough to cover parts and labor, but the fact is the REAL reason one would buy these is because of THAT someone's work.

I doubt the financial gains are so great as to ruffle feathers, but involving the people who created the game you're selling is just the ethical thing to do.

 

Without the actual game creators/license holder's consent, I just can't agree with a re-production, as much as I'd like to see ALL the games become widely available!

You raise a good point. This issue of creative ownership is what would distinguish me from Hozer. Whatever model of organising I use would follow social mission principles.

 

I do not aim to set up a for-profit business. I would aim to distribute as cheaply as possible, hopefully at cost, and run on donations. I'm an opponent of profit making, because profit always comes from exploiting someone else's effort. Profit is basically unpaid wages.

 

I think when it comes to mere licence holders of game intellectual property, they're the ones in the wrong. They own the property to someone else's effort, and they're trying to profit from something they didn't do.

 

In the case of moral intellectual property, people who actually made the game but may not own the legal property, I think making reproductions would not infringe on their moral rights. If anything, their decision to claim ownership behind proprietary copyright is immoral. Only a copyleft licence is the moral "copyright". The source code should always be released for a video game, and it should be freely useable in new games, so long as /their/ source code is also freely available.

Edited July 19, 2017 by vidak

[atari181]

This seems like a waste of time and money. You can easily obtain shitty repros on the cheap(Hozer). If you just want the games to play, it would be much cheaper just buying a Harmony cart.

 

This makes zero sense.

Edited July 19, 2017 by atari181

[Torr]

atari181: I've gotta ask (because I've been meaning to forever) what the heck is your avatar picture?!

[+Gemintronic]

There's a few developers on here who actually did make these games back in the day. I'm sure they'd be *delighted* to know someone is making copies of their work.

 

Why don't you stick with a Harmony cart for your own enjoyment and become a legitimate cart manufacturer for new indie 2600 titles?

[+KaeruYojimbo]

I think when it comes to mere licence holders of game intellectual property, they're the ones in the wrong. They own the property to someone else's effort, and they're trying to profit from something they didn't do.

 

In the case of moral intellectual property, people who actually made the game but may not own the legal property, I think making reproductions would not infringe on their moral rights. If anything, their decision to claim ownership behind proprietary copyright is immoral. Only a copyleft licence is the moral "copyright". The source code should always be released for a video game, and it should be freely useable in new games, so long as /their/ source code is also freely available.

 

So let me get this straight. You're trying to tell us you can do this because it's morally OK to reproduce a game since the copyright holder is just some big corporation profiting off someone else's work and it's legally OK because the creator doesn't hold any legal copyright?

[vidak]

So let me get this straight. You're trying to tell us you can do this because it's morally OK to reproduce a game since the copyright holder is just some big corporation profiting off someone else's work and it's legally OK because the creator doesn't hold any legal copyright?

you've got the first part right, the second part not so right.

 

Authors shouldn't be entitled to copyright. That's what I'm saying. No-one should be entitled to copyright. When I make games, I won't release them under copyright because that's immoral. I will release them as freeware/under an open source copyleft licence.

[vidak]

Becoming a legitimate manufacturer of indie titles is probably a good move. Carts might be cheap in the US but postage to Australia is slow and expensive. Quite a few carts on eBay which are otherwise $2 get $30 postage slapped on them.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

Authors shouldn't be entitled to copyright. That's what I'm saying. No-one should be entitled to copyright. When I make games, I won't release them under copyright because that's immoral. I will release them as freeware/under an open source copyleft licence.

 

You can believe that as fervently as you want, it doesn't make it right. If I create something, a game, a piece of music, a painting, whatever, I get to decide what happens to it. If I want to sell it or license it to someone else to sell or give it away or keep it in a closet forever and not let anyone else see it, it's my decision and my right, just as it's your decision and your right to do whatever you want with something you create.

[RamrodHare]

We're all pirates, in some form or another.

 

As Forrest Gump so elegantly put it, "That's all I have to say about that."

[+KaeruYojimbo]

Here's the thing about morality: everyone's is different. Some people think it's immoral to drink alcohol or play baseball on Sunday. Some people think making copies of video games and selling them, even at cost, is immoral.

[atari181]

atari181: I've gotta ask (because I've been meaning to forever) what the heck is your avatar picture?!

It's me from my Birthday party, why?

[RamrodHare]

It's me from my Birthday party, why?

[vidak]

 

You can believe that as fervently as you want, it doesn't make it right. If I create something, a game, a piece of music, a painting, whatever, I get to decide what happens to it. If I want to sell it or license it to someone else to sell or give it away or keep it in a closet forever and not let anyone else see it, it's my decision and my right, just as it's your decision and your right to do whatever you want with something you create.

 

 

Here's the thing about morality: everyone's is different. Some people think it's immoral to drink alcohol or play baseball on Sunday. Some people think making copies of video games and selling them, even at cost, is immoral.

 

I disagree with your understanding of morality. But we can agree to disagree!

[+5-11under]

Well, I guess that's that... .

[vidak]

I mean I can explain why I disagree, but I don't want to start a flame war. I am a university academic who has taught Intro to Ethics for about 2 years, and the standard response on meta-ethics from students is the one I quoted twice above. It happens to be completely false when you examine the position carefully. The name of the position taken above by Kaeru is called Moral Relativism, and it is wrong and in fact very dangerous.

[atari181]

I would say that stealing someone's work and selling it, even at cost, is "wrong and very dangerous".

[+KaeruYojimbo]

Stepping back for a second. As both a collector and a player, I have no interest in reproductions. Player me has plenty of other options (Stella, Harmony Cart, Flashback Portable). Collector me is only going to spend money on original cartridges.

 

Back to the morality thing. This kind of boils down to one thing for me. If you were to make and sell repros and the copyright holder of one of the games you sell asked you to stop, would you? Or would you continue to sell the game?

[Andromeda Stardust]

I understand Albert makes reproductions, but I was thinking of doing it for cheaper, with perhaps a little worse quality.

Well at least you are honest and up front about it.

 

Please.

 

There are more than enough Hozers in the world.

 

Buy a Harmony Cart instead.

 

This.

 

Seriously OP, you want to undercut Albert by making "worse" quality games, and actually admit to it? Hozer sure doesn't, though his repros are of lower caliber than Alberts. Race to the bottom much? Anyone who actively brags about creating a "low quality" product should have their head examined. Even the scumbag bootleggers from China don't brag like that.

 

• CHEAP!!! CHEAP!!! CHEAP!!!
• DON'T PAY MORE FOR BETTER PRODUCT!!!
• BUY OUR CRAP AND SAVE $$$ !!!
• GUARANTEED POORER CONSTRUCTION AND BUILD QUALITY COMPARED TO OUR COMPETITORS!!!
• DON'T BE DUPED BY PREMIUM BRANDS SELLING FOR MORE!!!
• NOONE TAKES SHORTCUTS IN MANUFACTURING LIKE WE DO, HAVE FASTER LEAD TIMES, OR PRODUCE HIGHER VOLUMES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR!!!
• BY BYPASSING APPLICABLE LAWS, WE CAN DUPLICATE ANYTHING WITH NO UPFRONT R&D COSTS, NO RESPECT FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF OTHERS, NO PAYMENTS OF ROYALTIES, NO CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR SWEATSHOP LABORERS OR END USERS, AND PASS THOSE ILLICIT SAVINGS DIRECTLY ONTO YOU!!!
• OUR INFERIOR PRODUCT WILL NOT BE UNDERSOLD!!!

[vidak]

I'd stop. Like I said I really want to focus on abandonware. That said, I morally don't think it's stealing though. The law has nothing to do with what's right and wrong though. It only contingently institutes justice. The law is about "might is right".

[vidak]

Seriously, you want to undercut Albert by making "worse" quality games, and actually admit to it? Hozer sure doesn't, though his repros are of lower caliber. Anyone who actively brags about creating a "low quality" product should have their head examined. Even the scumbag bootleggers from China don't brag like that.

 

 

• CHEAP!!! DON'T PAY MORE FOR BETTER PRODUCT!!! BUY FROM US AND SAVE $$$ !!! OUR INFERIOR PRODUCT WILL NOT BE UNDERSOLD!!!

that's a funny way to interpret what I'm saying. I can't afford Albert's carts, no slight against him. I doubt anyone in Australia could on minimum wage. I was trying to be humble, I don't think I would be as good as Albert starting out.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

I'd stop. Like I said I really want to focus on abandonware. That said, I morally don't think it's stealing though. The law has nothing to do with what's right and wrong though. It only contingently institutes justice. The law is about "might is right".

 

I guess I'm glad to hear that you'd honor the author's wishes, but I find your continued insistence that using someone else's work for your own purposes isn't stealing discomforting. It isn't about the law. It's about respecting the creator and the time and effort that goes into creation.

[accousticguitar]

You teach college for minimum wage?

[vidak]

You say "for your own purposes", but I'm imagining a free, open, and collective system of property you should never be able to profit off of someone else's work. The corollary of that is that you should never be able to profit of your own work. The phrase from Kropotkin is that "all belongs to all". Private property is immoral, only a system where everything is owned by everyone is moral.

 

My imagined system of licencing is that you should encode in the property rights of your games that you are to share the game freely and prohibit anyone from profiting from the work of art.

[vidak]

You teach college for minimum wage?

I earned less teaching at college than I did stacking shelves at the supermarket.

[accousticguitar]

I earned less teaching at college than I did stacking shelves at the supermarket.

Bummer!