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

[enoofu]

The iso zone and Emupardaise just got to big especially with all their website fee's

Adblock killed these sites more so then Nintendo.

 

Also if you know where to look a lot of these sites former staff moved everything to new websites.

[English Invader]

Another thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the sites Nintendo are going after were deliberately marketing roms and emulators which most of the other sites haven't been doing. We haven't seen much information about Nintendo's complaint and this Love Roms or whatever it's called seems to be a very different beast to most of the other sites and Nintendo hasn't filed a suit against them.

 

I also wonder about the logic of Emuparadise making a big public declaration that they won't host roms anymore in the hope of amnesty from Nintendo. They've been doing it for 18 years, Nintendo has them bang to rights and they think "I'm sorry, sir. I won't do it again. Please don't give me detention" will protect them?

 

My guess is that if Nintendo had wanted to sue any of the sites like Emuparadise they would have done it years ago and, if they had really gone under the radar for all this time, how is drawing public attention to themselves helping the situation?

Edited August 21, 2018 by English Invader

[Andromeda Stardust]

3a. The Playing of Teh Romz

 

No person shall infringe upon the right of the video game enthusiast to play Journey to Silius without having purchased a cartridge of said software in a retail store or from a secondhand purchase. Furthermore, such play shall constitute Preservation, a legal state which shall not be questioned by those who seek to monetize or otherwise destroy this noble pasttime.

The fact that our founding forefathers had the forsight to include an article pertaining to cultural reference that woukd not exist for another 200+ years, is quite remarkable. More remarkable is the fact that Benjamin Franklin invented and patented the time machine, and used it to travel to the 1980s to play their favorite NES game, then wrote a clause about it in the bill of rights. It was the first easter egg, written in special uv sensitive invisible ink, and discovered by flojo in 2018.

 

Also Ben and Thomas were well known baffoons in their day, if Making History was any indication:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_History_(TV_series)

[Tanooki]

enoofu is right, I just haven't figured out where those ISOs moved, the smaller stuff no stress there at all as the resources are easier to come by as they eat up far less space.

[derFunkenstein]

Here's a fascinating piece on Ars Technica about a (questionably) legal "rom rental" service called Console Classix:

 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/08/can-a-digital-lending-library-solve-classic-gamings-piracy-problem/

 

 

 

This is the conceit that Ethridge says makes it all legal, as summed up in an archived notice from 2007: "Once a user has selected a game, our server locks that image so that no one else can use it. This ensures that we are never using more copies of a game than we own; that would be copyright infringement... We allow you to access our ROMs, but we don't distribute them."

 

In other words, if there are four Console Classix users currently playing the site's four copies of Fester's Quest for the NES, other users have to wait until one of those players is done to loan it out themselves. In essence, Ethridge and Console Classix have simply digitized the process of serially loaning out a physical game cartridge to anyone who wants to use it, one person at a time.

 

"There is no ideological difference between our service and that of any common video rental store," the Console Classix site says. "We have simply taken a classic idea and brought it to the Web."

[phoenixdownita]

I had my disagreements with StamosMullet but in this discussion it seems like he's the only one that sits on the other side and for just cause.

 

Not by opinion, but everyone that wants to get free access is on the side of gaining something, while StamosMullet is on the side of losing something if free access for all (including "repackagers" that would make money out of it) would be made the norm.

 

I think we need more like him, that have actual horses in the race, for most us is play for free a bunch of games (stop the preservation nonsense, that can be solved in many other ways) while for him he gets to actually lose income .... I think we should hear more from people that actually would lose something.

(granted his link is to music rather than videogames but you get my point, he's one of the authors [even more IP holder] and not an end-user as far as this discussion is concerned)

[JBerel]

I dunno, the one thing I really believe is that not for the retro enthusiasts who dug the old games up and ran them on their computers in the 90s, the commercial retro market would not be much of a thing. They certainly wouldn't be able to sell old titles from the 80s for much. It's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy. Without the fans, there's not much market. The reality is most of the titles made their scratch in the original run on a variety of platforms. When they were successful or popular, they sold more. Then they ran their course and went out of fashion as people moved on.

 

Jump forward a few decades and they want to get more money from those old titles. Ok fine, but they don't get any guarantee of willing buyers for their old stuff, and the presumption that people running roms is cutting into their potential profits is dubious. The reality is most of these retro replay packages wouldn't even come to market due to no perceived interest if it weren't for people talking about them still. Those people are usually the ones running them on their PCs or in a homemade cabinet.

 

Sure there are grey lines with older/newer stuff etc., but what most of us are talking about are the games from our youth that many of us bought more than once, twice or ten times already. I guess my point is there's room for leechers and legitimate retail on this old stuff, but it's up to the folks that want to sell the old stuff to make it interesting enough for us to buy it. There's plenty of examples of that from mini arcade cabs to flashback consoles to e-shop stuff to name a few.

 

Was it the Greatful Dead that provided distribution amp hookups so their concert goers could hook in and make a concert recording? I know several bands used to do that. They understood when to sell their product and when to let people have it. The important thing was keeping the fans. That's all I'm saying.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Current copyright law is unconstitutional. It makes a mockery of the phrase "for limited times"

 

The purpose of the copyright clause of the Constitution is to ensure a steady flow of innovations in the arts and sciences into the public domain.

 

Article I Section 8. [/size]Clause 8 Patent and [/size]Copyright Clause of the [/size]Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.[/size]

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

 

Infinite copyright is unconstitutional. Extending the terms of copyright by a finite amout is constitutional. Also because the constitution says nothing about extensions, you can technically apply for copyright extensions an unlimited number of times. Leave it up to the lawyers to find legal loopholes to everything.

 

In the meantime, feel free to start a petition at change.org for Disney to release Steamboat Mickey to public domain.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Canada is in the snow forest? Now you're really rolling...

Fixed that for you.

 

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.

People actually live on Europa? That is news to me...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

 

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?

Strawman argument. Jaywalking is illegal but everybody does it. Rom downloading is illegal but everybody does it. If masturbation were a crime, it would be uninforceable because again, everybody does it.

[phoenixdownita]

...

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.

...

... to be fair if it was legal we would not be having a discussion at all as Nintendo (or anyone else) would have had no ground to attempt to enforce anything.

 

So the main point about being mad at big N because it wants to see applied the copyright laws and in so doing shutting down whole sites is a little moot.

 

We can of course discuss (as some were) if that law should be changed and how, but those are opinions and as it pertains to the actions of big N I don't think there's much they are at fault (aside maybe lobbying [if they do] to extend copyrights as a way to get money, given they are a for-profit company they would be stupid not trying to ... profit).

 

According to Wikipedia the NES Classic Edition sold 3.6 millions units while the SNES Classic Edition 5.3 sold millions ... that's 9 millions units combines ... not sure how much they make on each but it is not pennies anymore. We kind of know that an OrangePi lite class machine is <15US$ retail, so to them probably 1/3 that (my speculation) so at least 10US$ a piece they pocket, that's ~90 millions .... yeahhh I wonder why they behave the way they do ?!?.

[JBerel]

They're entitled to their tactics, as am I. All I can say is I'm not a customer of theirs anymore specifically because of their tactics in a number of sectors. I'm not going to feel the least bit bad for denying them any kind of perceived additional revenue through not buying from them or otherwise. If other people are happy to keep throwing money at Nintendo, that's the free market at work.

[Flojomojo]

I like turtles.

 

[atarilovesyou]

My opinion is a nuanced one. There are no "sides" here. There are facts, and opinions. I tend to favor speaking in facts, and when expressing opinions, make sure to qualify them as such. But there is no "us vs. them" argument to be had here. Let me explain:

 

1. Sharing roms of games that still exist in the world, whether sold at retail, or on a third party/ebay system is illegal - FACT.

 

2. Selling roms of games you do not own the distribution rights to is illegal, and criminal -FACT.

 

3. Copyright laws are designed to protect the rights holders, not hurt the general public. - FACT.

 

4. Romsites that were illegally distributing roms they don't have the rights to are not preserving anything. They are monetizing properties illegally. period. - FACT.

 

5. The argument that if a rights holder isn't marketing a current retail product for a given title, it's "ok" to share roms of their IP's is bullshit. There is no legal precedent governing the public distribution of, or legal defining of "abandonware".

 

 

Knowing the above to be facts, my Opinions are as such:

 

1. I want people to be honest, not make up bullshit excuses for why they collect roms and use emulators. You want to play these games, without having to pay for them, and it has nothing to do with "preservation".

 

2. I myself use roms and emulators and SD carts. I know it's illegal. I'm not trying to convince myself otherwise.

 

3. The argument for preservation of games that can easily be bought on ebay or from collectors is a bullshit excuse.

 

4. The small market description is accurate. Retro gaming is a very small niche market. So in the context of "We need to preserve these for future generations to enjoy" it's a silly justification. No, you don't. The vast majority of public of consumers do not care about this stuff at all.

 

5. I'm not upset at all that a grey market exists. I'm just laughing at the idea that people involved in the black market think they're acting as honorable "Treasure Protectors", when really they're just pirates who've invented a false narrative to justify their illegal behavior to themselves. None of it would stand up in court if any of the rights holders decided to sue them.

 

So my side is really: Do what you like. Buy what you can. Download if you want. Just don't lie about it. It makes you look silly, and potentially de-legitimizes any real effort to preserve things for historical purposes by watering down the public perception of things that are vital to preserve, vs. nonsense consumer items you have a personal nostalgic attachment to.

You make some very good points that are hard, if not impossible, to refute. I use ROMs, am well aware if everything you stated.

 

At the end of the day, since there is no legit way to get these games outside of the 2ndary marketplace (quite unlike music, which is normally quite available one way or another)...I know that my enjoyment of ROMs, dowmloading, what have you:

 

Hurts no one and nobody. Absolutely nobody! Like you said, we're niche. Nooooobody cares, at least, nobody should.

 

I fully support companies who make these games available, and have a ton of legit software. And I own the majority of software that I actively use. So in my personal case (and this is important, because people want to simplify it as a simple black and white issue, legal or criminal, which it is not...like most things in life, it's complicated)?...no harm, no foul...and that's the full impact of my behaviour. Anybody who can come up with something on the ethical side, hey man...I hear ya, and I even agree. But like I said: no legit avenue to get a game nobody other than us chickens cares about?

 

Nooooobody cares, nor should they! Total number of people losing revenue or getting hurt? ZERO

 

And they day they come to take my ROMs away, lol, oh well...but we know that's not gonna happen either.

[mr_me]

Again, nintendo didn't take action against emuparadise. Few are complaining about the sites that have been forced down along with manufacturers that blatantly and directly market

unauthorised rom files.

 

As far as I know, with current laws in most jurisdictions, copyright terms cannot be extended. Everything goes to public domain.

 

With the legal system it's often not a matter of who is right, but who has the most money and the most lawyers.

 

This is not just about free stuff. It's about access to games that would otherwise not be available. For example, I paid for all the rom files I wanted that are available to buy. There's about one third of them that are not available to buy for various reasons e.g. third party licensing, inactive copyright owners. It's not fair to have to track down rare cartridges, and 35 year old, dirty, unreliable hardware. Use of these rom files is [arguably] fair and supported by the law. It's not correct to call these people thieves.

 

Edit:

Flojomojo has a point in what was said below, and edited my post above.

Edited August 22, 2018 by mr_me

[Flojomojo]

This is not just about free stuff. It's about access to games that would otherwise not be available. For example, I paid for all the rom files I wanted that are available to buy. There's about one third of them that are not available to buy for various reasons e.g. third party licensing, inactive copyright owners. It's not fair to have to track down rare cartridges, and 35 year old, dirty, unreliable hardware. Use of these rom files is fair and supported by the law. It's not correct to call these people thieves.

 

You had me until the last bit, which comes off as entitled and whiny. We also have stores for old & rare books, antique jewelry, furniture. Just because games are easily copied (which was not possible for the average person when they were new) shouldn't make them any less protected.

 

We also have patents on things like drugs. Maybe old software should have a process to "go generic" and be playable on emulators after a period of time if the rights holders let things go.

[JBerel]

1. I think the oft discussed notion of preserving these old games comes from the feeling that most of these games are considered near worthless yet some value the ability to have access to them anyway. I say most are considered nearly worthless because of my second point.

2. I resent the notion that downloading 80s era game roms is stealing from the original rights holders, at least in my personal case. I can't speak to the experience of others, but I was there for the crash and I was an avid gamer through the 90s. I watched the games and systems I paid top dollar for become worth less than $2 in the bargain bins before totally disappearing. I hoarded anything worth having at full retail and as they were being liquidated. I watched them collect dust for years and finally disposed of them to Goodwill or as handmedowns. That included tons of Nintendo stuff in the day. When I was able to run them easily on a pc with none of the prerequisite hardware, it was really fun as a goof and enjoyable still from time to time. I even buy some of the better retro toys or re-releases on occasion. I'm not gonna feel bad for salvaging a lot of this stuff from certain destruction back in the day. It cost me money to buy it instead of the retailers dumping it ultimately. I also won't feel bad about using roms even if I don't still possess the original hardware, or didn't own every single game in creation originally. They all got there pound of flesh from me and then some. There's what's right and there's what's right. Others will have different experiences.

 

In a similar vein, I know the music houses would like to expect customers to buy the same music album in the 60's on LP, then in the 70's on tape, then in the 80's on CD, then in the 90's on mini disk (ROTFL), then in the 2000's on ITunes, then in the 2010's on Amazon music etc., etc., etc.. Same for the video folks, but at least you're getting higher resolutions in many cases. It's all well and good for companies to sell you rights for personal use to something, but then expect you to buy it over and over and over because they put it on a different hunk of plastic. As customers we don't get any protections, guarantees, or warranties to insure our personal use licensing rights we purchased are maintained in perpetuity. Nor are we likely to ever get any of those guarantees through legal channels. They like to have it both ways. Give you access while a hunk of plastic is still supported, but re-buy access if it's not. There's just a lot of inequity on both sides, as well as outright theft on both sides, so I still maintain it isn't black and white.

Edited August 22, 2018 by JBerel

[mr_me]

 

You had me until the last bit, which comes off as entitled and whiny. We also have stores for old & rare books, antique jewelry, furniture. Just because games are easily copied (which was not possible for the average person when they were new) shouldn't make them any less protected.

...

Fair use/dealing provisions apply to all copyrighted works, especially books. Edited August 22, 2018 by mr_me

[John Stamos Mullet]

1. I think the oft discussed notion of preserving these old games comes from the feeling that most of these games are considered near worthless yet some value the ability to have access to them anyway. I say most are considered nearly worthless because of my second point.

 

I disagree. I think the oft discussed notion of preserving these old games comes from the fact that people know they are easily copied and shared over the internet, and they want to be able to play them as much as they like for all eternity - for free, and that most consider them to be *too expensive* to buy on the secondary market to play in their originally intended format.

[Flojomojo]

they want to be able to play them as much as they like for all eternity - for free, and that most consider them to be *too expensive* to buy on the secondary market to play in their originally intended format.

 

That's certainly how I feel about them. It boggles my mind to hear of people paying triple digit prices for SNES and Playstation games.

[JBerel]

I disagree. I think the oft discussed notion of preserving these old games comes from the fact that people know they are easily copied and shared over the internet, and they want to be able to play them as much as they like for all eternity - for free, and that most consider them to be *too expensive* to buy on the secondary market to play in their originally intended format.

I double dog disagree. Sure folks would like to be able to play (i.e. have access to) these old titles for free for all eternity like they want access to Moby Dick or the Bible for free. That doesn't stop people from selling new printings of those books for a fee, and it doesn't stop people from buying them. Now when you argue that the games still have copyright protection (which in some cases is debatable) and the books don't, does that mean many of them should be allowed to evaporate and corrode into oblivion just in case somebody may still want to make a buck off them someday. I'm sure the Bible's originally intended format was pretty archaic and fragile too. Good thing somebody made a copy, or 8 billion.

 

Also, of all the game carts and discs I happen to still have boxed up, I almost never want to bother with running them on their original hardware just like I don't want to play my 60's music on a 200 pound console stereo system. And lest we forget, many of the folks having this discussion have purchased most of these titles multiple times through original carts, best of collections, re-releases, ports, toy consoles, what have you. If I could get back 10% of what I re-payed on every cheesy best of music collection on CD when I had the originals on LP or cassette, I'd have enough to retire.

 

And yes, I am the Apostle John. Follower of the risen son, and host of hosts, Donkey Kong Jr.

Edited August 22, 2018 by JBerel

[Flojomojo]

And yes, I am the Apostle John. Follower of the risen son, and host of hosts, Donkey Kong Jr.

 

It wouldn't hurt for there to be an articulate, charismatic person to lead a charge for reform. Maybe it's you. Maybe it's Tommy Tallarico!

[JBerel]

 

It wouldn't hurt for there to be an articulate, charismatic person to lead a charge for reform. Maybe it's you. Maybe it's Tommy Tallarico!

Who in the hell are you callin' charismatic!? Dem's fightin' words.

[RevEng]

[...]Not by opinion, but everyone that wants to get free access is on the side of gaining something, while StamosMullet is on the side of losing something if free access for all (including "repackagers" that would make money out of it) would be made the norm.

 

I think we need more like him, that have actual horses in the race[...]

I have copyrights on a few video productions. I benefit from copyright on those productions monthly, though in the form of direct sales, rather than royalties. Perhaps I qualify for your horse criteria.

 

We (copyright owners) stand to lose something only because the government granted us a limited monopoly; Copyright isn't a natural right, while the public does give up natural rights for it. Copyright laws help maximize the public good, but not if they're effectively perpetual.

 

I do agree it's important to have a diversity of viewpoints in the discussion.

 

FWIW, I don't think there's much disagreement here that Big N was within their legal right to act as they did, and had financial motivation to do so. Some of us just think the laws in question need tweaking. A few may feel that Nintendo is attacking their customers, but I'm not sure there's a very large overlap between ROM hoarders and current Nintendo customers.

 

To nobody in particular, the amount an individual is willing to pay (or not pay) for an item isn't a direct reflection on it's benefit to the public. See Tragedy of the Commons.

[John Stamos Mullet]

I have copyrights on a few video productions. I benefit from copyright on those productions monthly, though in the form of direct sales, rather than royalties. Perhaps I qualify for your horse criteria.

 

We (copyright owners) stand to lose something only because the government granted us a limited monopoly; Copyright isn't a natural right, while the public does give up natural rights for it. Copyright laws maximize the public good, but not if they're effectively perpetual.

 

I do agree it's important to have a diversity of viewpoints in the discussion.

 

FWIW, I don't think there's much disagreement here that Big N was within their legal right to act as they did, and had financial motivation to do so. A few may feel that Nintendo is attacking their customers, but I'm not sure there's a very large overlap between ROM hoarders and current Nintendo customers.

 

To nobody in particular, the amount an individual is willing to pay (or not pay) for an item isn't a direct reflection on it's benefit to the public. See Tragedy of the Commons.

Current laws are just that - current. Nothing is absolute, and these things change as society progresses and media redefines itself through new technology. People refer to the copyright passages in the US Constitution as if they are inviolate - but the Constitution has been amended 27 times already. If it doesn't adjust with time, technological advances, and societal shifts - we all lose. The public is not being "denied benefit" when a product's copyright owner is allowed to still be paid for it's work. The idea that society deserve "free stuff" after a certain arbitrary time period, defined entirely by people who "want it for free, RIGHT NOW!" is not really a great way to manage this situation.

Edited August 22, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[PlaysWithWolves]

The idea that society deserve "free stuff" after a certain arbitrary time period, defined entirely by people who "want it for free, RIGHT NOW!" is not really a great way to manage this situation.

 

Saying a 20-30 year old game should be public domain isn't saying "want it for free, RIGHT NOW!"

Because of the aforementioned derivative nature of creativity, the public is absolutely "denied benefit" by extended copyrights. I'm no pinko-commie, but even I recognize this. It just takes a cursory study of the arts. Just think of all the new forms of music that formed in the twentieth century--Jazz, soul, blues, rock. Would they have developed under current copyright laws (along with our current litigious nature)? Would you still be collecting any royalties at all?

 

January 1st, 2019 will be the first time in twenty years that works will enter public domain, FWIW.