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

[John Stamos Mullet]

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

Says who?

[pacman000]

 

I understand. I am aware, that copyright must have a term, must have a limit, because that is required by the Constitution of the United States, which sets aside the earlier constitution, which we call the Decalogue. The Decalogue says that you shall not take away from any man his property. I do not like to use the harsher term, "Thou shalt not steal." But the laws of England and America do take away property from the owner. They select out the people who create the literature of the land. Always talk handsomely about the literature of the land. Always say what a fine, a great monumental thing a great literature is. In the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to crush it, discourage it, and put it out of existence. I know that we must have that limit. But forty-two years is too much of a limit. I do not know why there should be a limit at all. I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit to the possession of the product of a man's labor. There is no limit to real estate. As Doctor Hale has just suggested, you might just as well, after you had discovered a coal mine and worked it twenty-eight years, have the Government step in and take it away--under what pretext!

 

The excuse for a limited copyright in the United States is that an author who has produced a book and has had the benefit of it for that term has had the profit of it long enough, and therefore the Government takes the property, which does not belong to it, and generously gives it to the eighty-eight millions. That is the idea. If it did that, that would be one thing. But it does not do anything of the kind. It merely takes the author's property, merely takes from his children the bread and profit of that book, and gives the publisher double profit. The publisher and some of his confederates who are in the conspiracy rear families in affluence, and they continue the enjoyment of these ill-gotten gains generation after generation. They live forever, the publishers do.

 

http://www.thecapitol.net/Publications/testifyingbeforecongress_Twain.html

 

Of course, if copyrights were perpetual, I couldn't post this.

[Video]

The reason for copyright, patents, and other things expiring is to protect the public though. Many patents or copyrights get Sat on by their creator, be it a person or business for years and do nothing because said person or business is ill equipped to package, market, and heck, even profit from it. Copyright was never intended to give the creator sole exclusivity to it forever, but rather, give them an opportunity to have time to profit from it.

 

I call bs on old games being niche markets. People want old stuff. Correction, people want old quality stuff. It's telling that the best selling current consoles are pnp classic consoles. Game companies will dismiss both of them, but it falls that, 1 people do in fact want this old stuff(and are willing to PAY for it) and two, people are tiring of the continual degradation and fragmentation of the modern market due to little things like half assed crap being released incomplete, and crippled with unreasonable drm (among other things) keeping them tied to the internet, forced obsolescence, etc.

[NinjaWarrior]

Now theisozone don't have ROM's or ISO's anymore

[Osgeld]

dont worry guys I have most of it "preserved" and will be willing to send you copies of my "historical archive" for only the cost of the hard disk ( + 285%)

[00010000]

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.

 

Actually on the note of OutRun 2 Coast to Coast, they could simply remove the Ferrari license but keep the rest intact. Worked for Outrunners. Or they could re-license the brand which isn't out of their domain since iirc SEGA holds the GT license atm (at least in Japan).

 

I guess technically, the same could be done w/ Cool Spot and TMNT, but those games used even more antiquated technology and therefore it'd likely be harder to redo art in them to remove the licenses. And in the case of TMNT, they already have a recent arcade release from Raw Thrills so probably if anything we already kind of have a precedent for current and future TMNT beat 'em ups that might not exactly be the classic Konami game but are essentially spiritual followups like the current one.

 

Oh yeah; Iso Zone shut down their downloads section a couple days ago apparently. Thanks, Nintendo! (/s)

[Gentlegamer]

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

 

And the fact that a thing has value at retail is irrelevant to whether it should pass into the public domain.

[Jess Ragan]

We've seen people do what you're describing. Remember when Electronic Arts released their own version of The Simpsons arcade game on Android and iOS? Except it wasn't really the arcade game as designed by Konami, back when the show was first finding its footing and the characters all felt fresh. No, it was an "arcade game" only in the respect that it had mindless beat 'em up action, and all the artwork and characters were based on a version of The Simpsons that had long lost its novelty and inspiration. It wasn't so much The Simpsons: The Arcade Game as The Simpsons: The Series That Would Not Die: The Arcade Game.

 

I'm not really thrilled with the notion that people should have to settle for a second-rate imitation of the game they loved as a child. We saw EA do this with GoldenEye (why is it always EA...?), and that was mediocre at best too. You mention that developers could take the original games and pull out the licenses, but really, that's part of their charm. Cool Spot is really tightly integrated with the 7*Up license... there's even a bonus stage where you're inside a bottle of lemon-lime soda! Removing the license is only going to harm the product... it would still be a playable platformer at its core, but people will see, for instance, a little red squirrel throwing acorns instead of a little red dot throwing effervescence, and they'll be disgusted with it. Unless the game is extremely simple, removing the license from a game doesn't make it the same game.

[Gentlegamer]

Nintendo's original success in USA was based on a lawsuit proving that Donkey Kong did not infringe Universal's rights to King Kong... because King Kong was in the public domain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

And the fact that a thing has value at retail is irrelevant to whether it should pass into the public domain.

so is personal attachment by nostalgic adults

[empsolo]

 

And the fact that a thing has value at retail is irrelevant to whether it should pass into the public domain.

Nobody is saying that a property shouldn’t enter the public domain. It’s just that 14 years is way too short. I think that lifetime of the creator plus 75 years is better because it allows the children of the property holder to properly benefit from their work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Stamos Mullet]

Nobody is saying that a property shouldnt enter the public domain. Its just that 14 years is way too short. I think that lifetime of the creator plus 75 years is better because it allows the children of the property holder to properly benefit from their work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thats exactly why it was changed to this standard.

[empsolo]

thats exactly why it was changed to this standard.

That and the late 19th and early 20th centuries were full of copyright and patent trolls who looked for a work that was out of copyright so they could repurpose it for themselves.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mr_me]

thats exactly why it was changed to this standard.

No, it was changed because corporations e.g. disney, and congressmen are greedy.

 

That and the late 19th and early 20th centuries were full of copyright and patent trolls who looked for a work that was out of copyright so they could repurpose it for themselves.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copyright and patent trolling only works before they expire. Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me

[icemanxp300]

Nobody is saying that a property shouldn’t enter the public domain. It’s just that 14 years is way too short. I think that lifetime of the creator plus 75 years is better because it allows the children of the property holder to properly benefit from their work.

 

Well hell why stop there? Why not let the grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on hold a copyright over something they had NOTHING to do with!

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

Well hell why stop there? Why not let the grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on hold a copyright over something they had NOTHING to do with!

as opposed to some random opportunist who had even less to do with it.

[mr_me]

Nobody's children is getting anything. Music is owned by record labels. Movies by studios. Software by computer companies. There are some exceptions, and of course the writers. But writers aren't exactly driving ferraris.

[empsolo]

Well hell why stop there? Why not let the grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on hold a copyright over something they had NOTHING to do with!

Life of the author plus 75 years seems more than fair. A person should be allowed to let his children reap the benefits of their work before it enters the public domain.

[John Stamos Mullet]

No, it was changed because corporations e.g. disney, and congressmen are greedy..

and software pirate who illegally steal and share many thousands of rom titles they have no legal or ethical right to aren't greedy?

[John Stamos Mullet]

Life of the author plus 75 years seems more than fair. A person should be allowed to let his children reap the benefits of their work before it enters the public domain.

and its not even that long it's life plus 75 or 120 years total, whichever comes first.

[empsolo]

Nobody's children is getting anything. Music is owned by record labels. Movies by studios. Software by computer companies. There are some exceptions, and of course the writers. But writers aren't exactly driving ferraris.

This of course ignores things like royalties. For example, in the comic book industry, there was a huge lawsuit between the estate of Jack Kirby and Marvel Comics over who exactly owned Captain America. With the Estate of Jack Kirby and Joe Simon getting a nice chunk of the royalties from Marvel Comics for every issue of Captain America sold as well as royalties from box office returns for movies.

 

By your logic, the estates of Jack Kirby would not have been able to see a single cent from proceeds of the recent resurgence in popularity of Captain America in both Film and Comic Book.

Edited August 17, 2018 by empsolo

[adamchevy]

I was a bit shocked when I heard that this site was hit with a lawsuit after so much time has passed. I’m not surprised that Nintendo went after them. Although I find it humorous that they probably downloaded the Super Mario Bros rom from emuparadise back in 2017 for the Wii. I assume Nintendo must be starting up some sort of Netflix type service for the Switch given there current attack on rom sites.

The moral/ethical argument doesn’t mean anything. Nintendo isn’t obligated to make any of these games available. Just like Disney isn’t obligated to release any of there intellectual property on a new format unless they want to.

I don’t care if people download roms personally. It reminds me of the Donut scene in the first transformers movie. So I downloaded a few thousand mp3s, who hasn’t?

Edited August 17, 2018 by adamchevy

[John Stamos Mullet]

Just so some of you understand a little bit of my position on this (without giving away too much of my personal info) I am a musician. I have had music published, and sold at retail, and played on television and film, for which I receive occasional royalties. Not a lot. Not enough to live on. But occasional checks based on usage of copyrighted works I participated in.

 

These are works that were originally recorded and published 18 years ago. But According to some of you, it would be "fair" if I never received another penny for my work, and that all of you could then appropriate my work without the need for permission, and even though it is still to this day used on a regular basis by major media.

 

Please explain to me how that could possibly be even remotely fair to me, when I am not even barely middle aged? How is it fair that you get to steal my work, and profit from it, while I have no choice in the matter?

[John Stamos Mullet]

Nobody's children is getting anything. Music is owned by record labels. Movies by studios. Software by computer companies. There are some exceptions, and of course the writers. But writers aren't exactly driving ferraris.

nope. I, along with my band mates at the time and others who worked on the record own our material. You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about. I don't want to be rude to you, but it's clear you have zero knowledge of this subject. Please stop making completely incorrect statements as if they are facts.

[mr_me]

Just so some of you understand a little bit of my position on this (without giving away too much of my personal info) I am a musician. I have had music published, and sold at retail, and played on television and film, for which I receive occasional royalties. Not a lot. Not enough to live on. But occasional checks based on usage of copyrighted works I participated in.

 

These are works that were originally recorded and published 18 years ago. But According to some of you, it would be "fair" if I never received another penny for my work, and that all of you could then appropriate my work without the need for permission, and even though it is still to this day used on a regular basis by major media.

 

Please explain to me how that could possibly be even remotely fair to me, when I am not even barely middle aged? How is it fair that you get to steal my work, and profit from it, while I have no choice in the matter?

If you're a musician, you should make more music. Edited August 17, 2018 by mr_me