EmuParadise has removed its entire library of retro game ROMs and ISOs

[AMenard]

I'm only speaking for the United States, I have no idea about copyright law in other countries.

 

Yes, but some people here use broad statements that don't make any distinctions. The roms market isn't limited to the USA only.

[Tempest]

Come one now, lets all be nice. This may be a pointless argument, but at least we're all (mostly) being civil about it.

[AMenard]

Come one now, lets all be nice. This may be a pointless argument, but at least we're all (mostly) being civil about it.

 

No problem. I made use of the ignore list function.

[+Gemintronic]

I hear in Europa they have a consumption tax wherein they assume you pirate media. A dragon flies by your farm and eats a random cow once a quarter.

[Tempest]

 

Yes, but some people here use broad statements that don't make any distinctions. The roms market isn't limited to the USA only.

 

True and I have no idea what the legal technicalities are if someone downloads a rom from the US in another country or vice versa.

[mr_me]

You're just making up fake numbers off the top of your head and posting them here as fact. Please cite your sources.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States

[John Stamos Mullet]

If the usage falls under fair dealings limitation exemption or fair use limitation under copyright law it becomes legal.

 

In other cases and in the US the rom files would have to total more than $1000 to be a misdemeanor. What's a 35 year old rom file worth? A thousand dollars worth is a lot of rom files.

You seem to be misinterpreting this.

 

Under the current law, as written, you would be guilty for the value of the works shared illegally, per copy. Meaning - if you have a rom file of a game that is worth only $1 - but you share it with 1000 people, you're guilty. If you have a rom that is worth $10 but only share it with 100 people, you're guilty. Since those roms are contained on still currently sold compilations and mini hardware at retail, the value of them can be calculated very easily.

 

 

Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).^[9] To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea. Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.

An individual may be liable if the infringement was committed: (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or © by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1).

Felony copyright infringement has a slightly higher threshold and possibly serious penalties. 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b). (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense.

Without establishing the threshold value, legitimate infringement, or the requisite state of mind, there can be no criminal liability. If the defendant can show they had a legitimate copy or use – such as through the first-sale doctrine – then the burden of proof falls on the government.^[9]

Edited August 16, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[+thanatos]

Now that Mickey Mouse is set to rightfully enter the public domain, it's time to revisit the current unconstitutional copyright "law."

 

 

I'd be willing to bet $100 that's not going to happen and the law will be changed again by 2023.

 

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

I'd be willing to bet $100 that's not going to happen and the law will be changed again by 2023.

 

Mickey-Mouse-Curve.png

By Virtue of the fact that Disney as a company, and Mickey Mouse as their lasting imagery is still a viable company and a going concern - I agree.

 

I also don't have a problem with this.

[mr_me]

You seem to be misinterpreting this.

 

Under the current law, as written, you would be guilty for the value of the works shared illegally, per copy. Meaning - if you have a rom file of a game that is worth only $1 - but you share it with 1000 people, you're guilty. If you have a rom that is worth $10 but only share it with 100 people, you're guilty. Since those roms are contained on still currently sold compilations and mini hardware at retail, the value of them can be calculated very easily.

 

Again, we are talking about people who have a copy on their computer and are not sharing or distributing it. Someone who is not charged with distributing. So you don't multiply the value by the people you share with because you haven't shared anything.

 

A flashback with 60 rom files sells for $40. What part of that is the hardware? Most of it. The rom files are worth very little. What commercial value do rom files that are not sold at all have?

Edited August 16, 2018 by mr_me

[Gentlegamer]

 

I don't disagree, but until the courts rule it is unconstitutional it's the law of the land like it or not.

 

Congress can change the copyright law at any time.

[pacman000]

But that doesn't apply to people living in the uncontacted tribes of the Amazonian Rainforest, and certain parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo!

Where IP infringement isn't illegal.

[John Stamos Mullet]

Again, we are talking about people who have a copy on their computer and are not sharing or distributing it. Someone who is not charged with distributing. So you don't multiply the value by the people you share with because you haven't shared anything.

 

A flashback with 60 rom files sells for $40. What part of that is the hardware? Most of it. The rom files are worth very little. What commercial value do rom files that are not sold at all have?

There are 8 different version of the Atari flashback with 60ish files on them, that all sold for $40. You can't claim they have no value, when these things sell thousands of units.

 

 

Where IP infringement isn't illegal.

And everyone has Cholera! FREEDOM!

Edited August 16, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

Congress can change the copyright law at any time.

They haven't touched it since 1998. The reason they changed it in 1998 was in reaction to the fact that pirates all but destroyed the music industry.

 

If they change it again, it more than likely would be to make the laws even more restrictive, not less, as 2018 internet sharing technology is far faster and more sophisticated than it was in 1998.

[Jess Ragan]

Capitalism is at odds with preservation. Nintendo's not going to have any difficulty keeping Super Mario Bros. alive for generations to come, but they have no interest in keeping around games with expired licenses, by defunct companies. There's just no money in it.

 

Granted, a lot of these games are objectively awful, but they are part of gaming history, and they should be archived to give future players a more complete picture of what each generation of gaming was like. Besides, there are occasional gems scattered throughout the rubble of licensed video games. There was Cool Spot, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade games, and Outrun Coast 2 Coast. All of these games had merit, but because of the marketing tie-ins, they've got no hope of finding their way in a collection. It was a damn miracle that we got the Disney Afternoon Collection, and that was only through the efforts of a preservationist... who pirated the games when he was younger.

 

So yeah, I'm taking the Robin Hood approach. I buy what I can on my limited budget, and I've bought a lot, but when companies can't (or won't) offer a certain game, I will find a way to acquire it. Is it legal? No. Is it moral? Possibly not, although that's highly subjective. If you want to have an argument about legality and morality, let's look at the companies that continually extend copyright and steal from the public domain just to keep a big-eared rat financially viable.

[Flojomojo]

Only a few more posts to read, and I will earn my Atari Age associates degree in paralegal studies!

 

This is one of my favorite sites/organizations/causes on this topic: https://law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2018/shrinking/... there's lots of good stuff here. I think most of us would like to see and end of the "shrinking public domain" and have more works freely available to all.

[pacman000]

Well they used to have a way to deal with that.. require copyright renewals! If you fail to renew it goes public domain. These big companies have the resources to deal with the paperwork for that every 14 years. They already need to deal with reregistering their Trademarks, and their internet domains and lots of other things more frequently than that.

I agree, but I think U.S. copyright laws are designed to meet some international treaties, which may not allow the old register/renew method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#Adoption_and_implementation

 

There have been attempts to create some sort of copyright abandonment law, but in the U.S. those efforts have been defeated by groups of authors who were afraid the laws would hurt smaller publishers/writers. I don't know how to strike a balance there. A large company should be able to keep their files up to date, but a small company, or an individual? Red tape gets tangled too quickly.

Edited August 16, 2018 by pacman000

[mr_me]

There are 8 different version of the Atari flashback with 60ish files on them, that all sold for $40. You can't claim they have no value, when these things sell thousands of units.

I never said they have no value. They have value, it's little. We're talking about the value of a single copy, not the value of the copyright.

 

 

They haven't touched it since 1998. The reason they changed it in 1998 was in reaction to the fact that pirates all but destroyed the music industry.

 

...

Napster was created in 1999. Edited August 16, 2018 by mr_me

[Osgeld]

I like cookies

[Gentlegamer]

There are 8 different version of the Atari flashback with 60ish files on them, that all sold for $40. You can't claim they have no value, when these things sell thousands of units.

 

 

And everyone has Cholera! FREEDOM!

 

Copies of public domain materials are sold at retail all the time. Of course they have value, and anyone can publish them or create derivative works based on them. That's what the public domain is.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Gentlegamer

[RevEng]

 

The "there is never any justification" responses in this thread are so full of logical fallacies, that I'm suspicious they're not in good faith.

Sorry, theft is theft. It may be socially acceptable theft, but it's still theft. I'm just as guilty of it as everyone else, but at the end of the day it's not legal no matter how you want to try and phrase the argument.

 

I don't see anybody arguing that it's legal. (aside from some side-discussion of jurisdiction). Certainly I didn't, which is why it's astounding that this same statement of "it's not legal" keeps coming back as a reply, over and over.

 

I'm trying to see how your reply actually relates to what I posted. Is it a reply to what you believe I'm secretly thinking?

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

Copies of public domain materials are sold at retail all the time. Of course the have value, and anyone can publish them or create derivative works based on them. That's what the public domain is.

Ok? What does that have to do with this conversation? We're not talking about public domain items.

 

Things you want that are old don't just randomly become public domain because you want them to.

[pacman000]

I think Gentlegamer meant Atari, Nintendo, et al wouldn't loose money because they could still sell the games.

[Flojomojo]

[mr_me]

By Virtue of the fact that Disney as a company, and Mickey Mouse as their lasting imagery is still a viable company and a going concern - I agree.

 

I also don't have a problem with this.

They should make money by creating new stuff. The old stuff is money for doing nothing.