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

[JBerel]

I suspect the crux of the issue is that those who feel entitled to payment for their works should be required to declare that formally rather than that being the presumption for darn near forever effectively. If I get money from a film or video production I've done, that should be documented by the transaction, income reporting in taxes or something else. If I have a creation out there that I never did much of anything with, or I haven't paid any attention to in a decade or more, or ever, it should be available to others for reference or personal use within reason if other's assign some value to it? I still get to sell it if I determine there's an audience. Somebody else should have no right to commercial benefits from my work, which takes us back around to the necessity of registering your works if you want to be protected. But what if people like my old creation and are sharing it among themselves? Can I sue somebody? Probably. Should I? Doubtful. Do I stand to make a buck from it's newfound popularity? Maybe.

 

Then you have the more complex issues of terms of use. This is where the consumer is getting royally screwed all the time. If I purchase some music on tape, what did I buy? Did I buy just a plastic cassette and emulsion covered film with intangible noises on it? Did I purchase rights to listen to that music without putting it on TV or selling copies? Shouldn't I be able to play it in my MP3 player? What if I loose the tape? What if the tape breaks? What if I tossed the tape in the trash? Do I have no rights to play that music on my MP3 player then or ever? If I own a game cartridge, shouldn't I have rights to use the contents in it? When it was purchased, nothing restricted me to temporary use of that cartridge and if it broke, I'm out of luck.

 

The worst part of all of this, in my view, is we seem to be getting pushed into an inevitable scenario where everything is forever pay to play. Rights holders want to charge consumers every time they consume an intangible product. This isn't like attending Hamilton on Broadway 10 times and only paying once. I can buy a tomato, eat it and plant the seeds. If I eat the tomatoes from the resulting plant, am I stealing? Do I need to pay somebody for each resulting tomato? If I buy a game and run it on my PC instead of from the plastic cartridge it came in, is that stealing?

 

There are lots of unanswered questions both moral and legal here. I'm not content to let only the folks who stand to make an extra buck provide all the answers.

[RevEng]

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.

We totally agree on all of this. We just disagree on what would be of benefit to the public.

 

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.

Society has done "free stuff" for centuries. The majority of those "classical works of art" you said roms didn't compare to (with the inference being that roms didn't deserve preservation) were created without a copyright system. Michelangelo was known to be a forger. Shakespeare borrowed the Hamlet character right out of someone else's story (and much earlier than present copyright law terms would have allowed!)

 

So yes, it's a balance of a natural right being traded away for the common good. Except the recent trades haven't been for the public good.

 

It's not about "deserving", it's about the public good in not grid-locking the arts. Maybe you "deserve" to pay a portion of your royalties to ancient estates responsible for underlying inventions in your music. Are your chord progressions entirely novel? Did you invent the tuning systems? That could have been someone else's copyright and patent, under a perpetual system.

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

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.

So then why isn't there a push for the makers of popular board games from 20-30-40-50 years ago to just give up their copyrights and let people share them for free? OR any other games? OR other toys, or entertainment platforms?

 

The only reason people see the idea of shortening or limiting copyright expiration as good is because in this particular instance it absolves these same people of the guilt/liability of illegally sharing and distributing them for free. This is only a concern for people who are illegally sharing and distributing copyrighted material.

 

Nobody else, no other popular arts communities are making this kind of push for limiting copyrights, except the other also commonly shared digital format enthusiasts for music and movies. The only reason this argument means anything to anyone is because of the advent of internet file sharing.

 

If easy copying and sharing of this material wasn't possible, and didn't exist - no one would care about the copyrights. This is all just a ruse to assuage guilty consciences and get free stuff.

Edited August 22, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[PlaysWithWolves]

The ease of copying has nothing to do with copyright expiration limits.

[John Stamos Mullet]

The ease of copying has nothing to do with copyright expiration limits.

The ease of copying and subsequent illegality of it has everything to do with the people currently demanding that copyright limits need to be shortened from their current legal expiration.

[JBerel]

So then why isn't there a push for the makers of popular board games from 20-30-40-50 years ago to just give up their copyrights and let people share them for free? OR any other games? OR other toys, or entertainment platforms?

 

The only reason people see the idea of shortening or limiting copyright expiration as good is because in this particular instance it absolves these same people of the guilt/liability of illegally sharing and distributing them for free. This is only a concern for people who are illegally sharing and distributing copyrighted material.

 

Nobody else, no other popular arts communities are making this kind of push for limiting copyrights, except the other also commonly shared digital format enthusiasts for music and movies. The only reason this argument means anything to anyone is because of the advent of internet file sharing.

 

If easy copying and sharing of this material wasn't possible, and didn't exist - no one would care about the copyrights. This is all just a ruse to assuage guilty consciences and get free stuff.

 

Scrabble, Trouble, Sorry, Connect 4, and a thousand other games are constantly copied by people with a variety of retooling in wood, cardboard, marble etc. The brand name versions are still for sale and probably always will be when there's a market. Toys too are constantly remade and reproduced at a variety of quality levels. Most of this stuff is just like storytelling in that they're all based on an earlier version with something added. Look at snakes and ladders and every board game with dice. In many cases the duplicates of games and toys may be running afoul of copyright law, but if they're not being sold to line the pockets of folks who don't hold the rights to commercial sales, who's harmed? The big boys holding the copyright, (often not the original makers themselves) still get to sell the stuff themselves. If they're competitive and package it up nicely, they get lots of buyers.

 

Plenty of people are pushing for limits on copyrights in a number of other areas, especially where the rights holders are putting the screws to people. High Schools can't perform lots of plays because the rights holders try to extort large sums for the performance rights. Same with lots of songs. Try to use the tune and lyrics to frikin' "Happy Birthday" in your film and see what happens. Worst abuses are in hybrid seed development, defoliants, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Just try to cross Monsanto, Merk or Pfiser one time. I don't care if your trying to save a life or feed a village, those guys will hang you out to dry in a heartbeat. Talk about people who should have a guilty conscience. Screw them. My conscience is clean. What happened to makin' an honest day's pay for an honest day's work? What happened to making a quality product for a fair price? Nobody is denying these people the right to profit from their works. They're just not entitled to perpetual control over non commercial use of it.

[pacman000]

The copyright to Happy Birthday was ruled invalid three years ago: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html

[PlaysWithWolves]

The ease of copying and subsequent illegality of it has everything to do with the people currently demanding that copyright limits need to be shortened from their current legal expiration.

 

I intended to make an addendum to my post, but the HVAC guy showed up.

 

The ease of copying is the very reason the idea of copyrights, trademarks, and patents were created. It was to protect content creators (or inventors) from unscrupulous publishers taking someone's work and profiting from it soon after being published. I think everyone in this thread believes creators should get rewarded for their work.

 

It was like this for many years. Somewhere it seems to have shifted away from unscrupulous publishers who wanted to make money off someone toward the average consumer. I don't know--maybe it started with 4 or 8-tracks. If not, then any subsequent year where people could make mix tapes/CDs or VHS copies. Here's the thing: People downloading ROMs, or music, generally aren't wanting to sell them (outside a few "unscrupulous publishers"). Odds are pretty good they already paid for them in some way; perhaps several times over.

 

But I don't see how ease of copying means copyrights need to be virtually two lifetimes long.

 

[JBerel]

The copyright to Happy Birthday was ruled invalid three years ago: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html

 

 

But I don't see how ease of copying means copyrights need to be virtually two lifetimes long.

 

 

Gotta let the rich get richer. Pity the rich man's burden, for one day soon that will be you too, or so everyone wishes.

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

I intended to make an addendum to my post, but the HVAC guy showed up.

 

The ease of copying is the very reason the idea of copyrights, trademarks, and patents were created. It was to protect content creators (or inventors) from unscrupulous publishers taking someone's work and profiting from it soon after being published. I think everyone in this thread believes creators should get rewarded for their work.

 

It was like this for many years. Somewhere it seems to have shifted away from unscrupulous publishers who wanted to make money off someone toward the average consumer. I don't know--maybe it started with 4 or 8-tracks. If not, then any subsequent year where people could make mix tapes/CDs or VHS copies. Here's the thing: People downloading ROMs, or music, generally aren't wanting to sell them (outside a few "unscrupulous publishers"). Odds are pretty good they already paid for them in some way; perhaps several times over.

 

But I don't see how ease of copying means copyrights need to be virtually two lifetimes long.

 

For the same reason that other technological advances have rendered certain laws moot or inapplicable in their original context.

 

Comparing cassettes and other single-copy-at-a-time magnetic media to internet file sharing is like comparing a paper cut on your finger to being decapitated, drawn & quartered, burned, flattened with a steamroller, and then used as wallpaper in a public restroom.

 

The technology's capacity to utterly ruin the original intentiona or understanding of the implications of the law, that it requires a remedy that won't be defeated in our lifetimes.

[Flojomojo]

The technology's capacity to utterly ruin the original intentiona or understanding of the implications of the law, that it requires a remedy that won't be defeated in our lifetimes.

 

Remember the Senate's questions to Zuckerberg? Until we have legislators that understand technology, this is going to keep happening again and again.

[PlaysWithWolves]

For the same reason that other technological advances have rendered certain laws moot or inapplicable in their original context.

 

Comparing cassettes and other single-copy-at-a-time magnetic media to internet file sharing is like comparing a paper cut on your finger to being decapitated, drawn & quartered, burned, flattened with a steamroller, and then used as wallpaper in a public restroom.

 

The technology's capacity to utterly ruin the original intentiona or understanding of the implications of the law, that it requires a remedy that won't be defeated in our lifetimes.

 

Every generation has to deal with technology, and every generation thinks it's paper cuts vs ULTIMATE DEATH. Just ask the Luddites. Or just a few decades earlier, in the late 18th Century, it was the printing press. Hence, why copyrights were born.

 

While I think music, game, and movie industry's piracy losses are intentionally over-inflated, the answer to technology is more technology--not essentially indefinite limits. You could do harsher penalties, but that leads to bad press; which leads to more losses.

 

YouTube uses technology to fight violations, and even makes money off them. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were web crawlers scouring the innernets with similar tech. Of course, it would be moot after a few decades if our copyrights weren't extended to (for all intents-and-purposes) infinity and beyond.

[00010000]

... 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 ?!?.

 

Here's the thing; this isn't JUST about Nintendo and I kind of wish you guys kind of saw the bigger picture here. Sites like Emu and Iso ALSO hosted TONS of non-Nintendo games, games from dead companies and games that are literally lost to time where playing them legit now either requires you pay thousands for an arcade machine (and probably still need to pay hundreds for restoration purposes), pay hundreds for a limited copy that may not even be complete, or pay hundreds/thousands for the original console/computer hardware to run it (never mind perhaps needing to invest time in learning the quirks of setting the hardware up for the game; if you're talking pre-Win 95 games get ready to deal with memory allocation and IRQs in DOS command prompts, setting up video and audio drivers manually etc. That limits the potential audience for those games *significantly*).

 

This actually ties into a bigger problem I have with the whole thing; somehow, Nintendo just seems to think they are the retro gaming scene, so they can speak over others or speak in their place and do things that may affect access to content from others in the scene, content that has virtually no chance of being logistically re-released either digitally or physically, and is either prohibitive to obtain in terms of materials or cost (if not both). It's an arrogance from both them and certain people in the retro scene that just tastes disgusting. Sure, if you don't want your content hosted on these sites, do something about that, but don't start setting precedents of shutting these places down who also provide content of back catalogs from other companies, dead and little alike, who stand to benefit from new players easily accessing their classics and generating interest in them. Some of the retro revivals we've seen have been PRECISELY due to this reason, but of course since those aren't Nintendo games, they don't care. Nor should they from a business perspective, BUT for a company people like to laud as being a bit more humble and earnest vs. say Sony and Microsoft (even tho that isn't exactly true), you'd think they would look at the meta of this. You'd think see what this does in terms of helping or hurting the retro scene's ability to grow and easily reach new players who might be engaging with these games for the first time ever.

 

And you can argue that Nintendo is helping the scene w/ the Classics, but that's mainly a business incentive, and it also gate-keeps through a price barrier. A barrier most of us (if not all of us here) can easily afford, but to more casual types who may be looking to try out casual games, unless the selection at those prices are guaranteed hits, they likely won't bother. So now you enforce a Catch-22, a cycle where a company (Nintendo in this case) is only going to pick the most popular games (rather than the best, some of which are inevitably going to be among the more popular names but some of which inevitably won't, too), which means the unknowns get shunned, means they'll left to keep lingering in obscurity. It's a nasty feedback loop where having locations such as Emu and Iso easily reachable allowed quite a lot of curious people (myself included) to try out unknown games we otherwise wouldn't have, games that have since become favorites, and in some cases even leading to renewed interest from the original dev/pub, thanks to social media and how easy that makes it for people to communicate with each other these days over games in general.

 

Nintendo's a vital part of the retro scene, but to me they are nowhere NEAR the authority in getting to dictate its paces, or to attempt gate-keeping on behalf of others simply to protect their own interests. It doesn't matter what the Classics sales numbers are because, at the end of the day, I don't care. That doesn't benefit me or you or anyone on this board in any way regarding their wallets, so why even bring that up? If you think it's because they're going to feel better about putting unknowns in future releases, well,...there's already evidence to indicate that isn't exactly the case, and there was nothing stopping them from doing that from the beginning. Besides, it's not like these devices will ever have the entirety of their libraries made available on them, so you're obviously going to still miss quite a few games. Some bad obviously, but some most certainly not.

 

Those are basically my feelings on it; I'm not gonna sit here and whine about a mega-conglomerate's issues on this. They should know there's a right way and wrong way to proceed in handling such affairs. Nintendo (and every other company, for that matter) have the right to protect their IP, this is obvious. But also be realistic about it. If it's over an IP that isn't relevant to the current mainstream market and you have no plans in reviving it for said market (or re-releasing the older games in that IP for the mainstream market)...MAYBE don't be a dick and copyright-troll. Would you rather that IP get some free exposure and potentially gin up interesting with a new generation of players getting into the retro scene (that could in the future perhaps lead to bigger interest and making bringing back that IP financially viable), or just let it die in obscurity with no way for anyone to discover it (in sensible terms), play it, and spread the word? What sane company would choose the latter option?

[Flojomojo]

They should know there's a right way and wrong way to proceed in handling such affairs.

 

[phoenixdownita]

 

<Rant/>

 

...It doesn't matter what the Classics sales numbers are (1) because, at the end of the day, I don't care (2). That doesn't benefit me (3) or you or anyone on this board in any way regarding their wallets, so why even bring that up? If you think it's because they're going to feel better about putting unknowns in future releases, well,...there's already evidence to indicate that isn't exactly the case, and there was nothing stopping them from doing that from the beginning. Besides, it's not like these devices will ever have the entirety of their libraries made available on them, so you're obviously going to still miss quite a few games. Some bad obviously, but some most certainly not.

 

<MoreRant/>

 

(1) it matters because it told big N that there is huge potential for sales (the 2 combined sold 75% of the Wii U) .... hence they probably upped their plans to support more minis and/or a more souped up Switch e-store retro experience ... and likely spurred a more protective behavior on them wrt their IPs

 

(2) <sarcasm> .... oh well, then that's it I guess, as long as you don't care .... </sarcasm>

 

(3) it wasn't supposed to, it was supposed to benefit them

 

 

ALSO big N didn't SHUT them down it likely sent a C&D order and the site owners decided to shut down (and move stuff around) .... as it could have gotten much worse had they had to go to court ... check out what happened/will-happen to Kim Dotcom.

 

 

I am not sure sure what particular material you cared to download and you couldn't but it's not like it disappeared, it just moved around.

 

Wrt to benefiting new gamers please keep in mind that until the copyright laws change one has to pay for the privilege to play/use someone else's IP to the full extent the laws allow (in this case until expiration or express gift to public domain like most Vectrex games I believe),but in no way playing those games for free during the coverage offered by the copyright protection laws is a right.

 

We can surely discuss the fact that with digital goods the concept of "copy" makes little sense, and "streaming" should be the way to go ... like it happened for music and movies. Videogames are not there yet as the tech isn't quite ready (I used to own an OnLive microconsole and they had a few emu based games there one could try for free and the lag was just killing it for me).

 

Things would likely change in the future but aside from voting for parties that may have an intent to speed up the process (ie change the laws), no amount of self-serving logic would change how things are.

Btw check the changes wrt to legalization of Marijuana in the USA (at least some states) ... as it was illegal it was a crime, once it was made legal it ceased to be, but first laws had to change in that direction (and it is not done yet due to the fedgov not having yet "accepted" the situation making banks not allowing business to use them directly and causing all transactions to be basically in cash in turn making those sales-points target for theft ... but that's another story).

[mr_me]

...

 

Wrt to benefiting new gamers please keep in mind that until the copyright laws change one has to pay for the privilege to play/use someone else's IP to the full extent the laws allow (in this case until expiration or express gift to public domain like most Vectrex games I believe),but in no way playing those games for free during the coverage offered by the copyright protection laws is a right.

 

We can surely discuss the fact that with digital goods the concept of "copy" makes little sense, and "streaming" should be the way to go ... like it happened for music and movies. Videogames are not there yet as the tech isn't quite ready (I used to own an OnLive microconsole and they had a few emu based games there one could try for free and the lag was just killing it for me).

 

Things would likely change in the future but aside from voting for parties that may have an intent to speed up the process (ie change the laws), no amount of self-serving logic would change how things are.

 

...

The law already limits the rights of copyright owners through provision and exception clauses. This makes the use of works that are not currently published or orphaned (aka abandoned) legal. Not having to deal with antiquated hardware and obsolete operating systems can also be considered uses that are fair. So, although the vectrex software being given to public domain helps anyone who wants to commercialise them, it wasn't necessary. As an aside, I think music streaming is a huge waste of energy resources.

[phoenixdownita]

The law already limits the rights of copyright owners through provision and exception clauses. This makes the use of works that are not currently published or orphaned (aka abandoned) legal. Not having to deal with antiquated hardware and obsolete operating systems can also be considered uses that are fair. So, although the vectrex software being given to public domain helps anyone who wants to commercialise them, it wasn't necessary. As an aside, I think music streaming is a huge waste of energy resources.

Guys stop twisting what the laws says and what you want it to say.

 

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware#Law

 

In most cases, software classed as abandonware is not in the public domain, as it has never had its original copyright officially revoked and some company or individual may still own rights. While sharing of such software is usually considered copyright infringement, in practice copyright holders rarely enforce their abandonware copyrights for a number of reasons – chiefly among which the software is technologically obsolete and therefore has no commercial value, therefore rendering copyright enforcement a pointless enterprise. By default, this may allow the product to de facto lapse into the public domain to such an extent that enforcement becomes impractical.

Rarely has any abandonware case gone to court, but it is still unlawful to distribute copies of old copyrighted software and games, with or without compensation, in any Berne Convention signatory country.

 

Now, this is about distribution which is what those sites do, if you copy on your own things you purchased (backup a it may be) there's little issue as long as you don't distribute (and for movies/music don't use them in public functions/venues), given many want access to games they do not currently own (the whole caboodle in some cases) they need someone else to distribute them so they can get a "copy" and that is where the law kicks in as those sites/entities have no right to allow copies (make copies as it may be).

 

Are we clear on what the law says!?!?!?!

You can hang on the fact that rarely "abandonware" goes to court but that's your choice not what current laws state.

 

Now we should go back discussing on what we think the changes should be and why.

[derFunkenstein]

Now we should go back discussing on what we think the changes should be and why.

I think I should be allowed to do as I please because clearly I know what's best.

[mr_me]

Guys stop twisting what the laws says and what you want it to say.

 

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware#Law

 

In most cases, software classed as abandonware is not in the public domain, as it has never had its original copyright officially revoked and some company or individual may still own rights. While sharing of such software is usually considered copyright infringement, in practice copyright holders rarely enforce their abandonware copyrights for a number of reasons chiefly among which the software is technologically obsolete and therefore has no commercial value, therefore rendering copyright enforcement a pointless enterprise. By default, this may allow the product to de facto lapse into the public domain to such an extent that enforcement becomes impractical.

Rarely has any abandonware case gone to court, but it is still unlawful to distribute copies of old copyrighted software and games, with or without compensation, in any Berne Convention signatory country.

 

Now, this is about distribution which is what those sites do, if you copy on your own things you purchased (backup a it may be) there's little issue as long as you don't distribute (and for movies/music don't use them in public functions/venues), given many want access to games they do not currently own (the whole caboodle in some cases) they need someone else to distribute them so they can get a "copy" and that is where the law kicks in as those sites/entities have no right to allow copies (make copies as it may be).

 

Are we clear on what the law says!?!?!?!

You can hang on the fact that rarely "abandonware" goes to court but that's your choice not what current laws state.

 

Now we should go back discussing on what we think the changes should be and why.

Didn't say orphaned works are public domain, but that does not mean that their private use is not fair and legal under US copyright law. US law does not address commercialisation of orphaned works and that would not be considered fair use, but other jurisdictions do. In Canada you can license orphaned works from the copyright board and the UK has similar provisions. That licensing is not necessary for private use.

 

https://cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/BRO-2016-08-23-EN.html

 

The discussion is not just about distribution, it's also about calling users thieves. Just saying not all cases of unauthorised copying is illegal.

[phoenixdownita]

Didn't say orphaned works are public domain, but that does not mean that their private use is not fair and legal under US copyright law. US law does not address commercialisation of orphaned works and that would not be considered fair use, but other jurisdictions do. In Canada you can license orphaned works from the copyright board and the UK has similar provisions. That licensing is not necessary for private use.

 

https://cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/BRO-2016-08-23-EN.html

 

The discussion is not just about distribution, it's also about calling users thieves. Just saying not all cases of unauthorised copying is illegal.

OK then I guess you seeked and obtained such rights for every and each game you cared to download? Am I correct? (assuming you are either in CA or UK)

and of course none of them are Nintendo, Konami, Sega, Capcom, SNK .....

 

Of course if you don't download this does not apply to you either way and given none of the people so irate in this topic brought up this point I guess either they didn't know or they don't live in CA/UK or they didn't care, so during the act they still broke the law.

 

Oh finally the burden is on you to prove that you did everything reasonable to find the original IP holder ... not sure what that means but just asking for permission itself ain't enough, and the board can ask for a license fee.

 

It is great that such laws exits in CA/UK maybe more countries on the Berne Convention should join in so to speak

[JBerel]

I gotta point out that, by definition, unauthorized copying is illegal. The legality of the copying or distribution is not in question, just whether it's legally enforceable, worth prosecuting, or if damages can be claimed in a court. Prior to the mid 90s, I'd say this was a case where these situations needed to be adjudicated to establish a precedent, but with adoption of the DMCA, it's pretty clear copying and distributing electronic works with a valid copyright is illegal.

 

We could argue the moral and practical implications of this forever, but back to the point, I'd suggest that the abandoned works legislation needs to finally get passed. That's been kicked around for years and nothing has been passed. Sadly, if anything ever is, it will be some pro-business crap that's politically motivated and lobbied to result in little more than a longer lock on copyrights no one has rightful claim to.

 

What the abandoned works legislation should say in 6 pages or less is that all works are entitled to a valid copyright claim for 20 years from creation without registration. After 20 years, a work must be formally registered and re-registered every 10 years after to maintain a valid copyright. That's the only way to insure creators have valid claim to proceeds from their works. If somebody doesn't bother registering their work 20 years out and thereafter, there's no way to establish any commercial value applied to the work, and the creator effectively has abandoned it. I don't know why that's so freakin' difficult, except that it's not hugely favorable to corporations.

[mr_me]

You don't need copyright board licenses for private use, just as it is in the United States. The law has provisions that can make it legal. If you are interested in selling orphaned works than you can apply for a license with the copyright board, that is something you can't do in the United States. Distributing orphaned works in the US is a crime. Again, there are some cases where unauthorised copying of protected works is legal.

Edited August 24, 2018 by mr_me

[phoenixdownita]

You don't need copyright board licenses for private use, just as it is in the United States. The law has provisions that can make it legal. If you are interested in selling orphaned works than you can apply for a license with the copyright board, that is something you can't do in the United States. Distributing orphaned works in the US is a crime. Again, there are some cases where unauthorised copying of protected works is legal.

But you have to source it from somewhere don't you?

If you already have it we established you can "backup" ... but if you don't own it?

 

here is the relevant part for CA:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-10.html

 

29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if

• (a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable;

• (b) the source copy is not an infringing copy;

• © the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and

• (d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.

[mr_me]

I'm talking about orphaned works for private use, which uses section 29.22 .

 

Edit: Actually 29.22 has a similar condition to what phoenix pointed out. The copyright board had to address orphaned works seperately. The application form does ask about distribution and sales which is not applicable for private use. American fair use law is more subjective for this type of thing.

Edited August 24, 2018 by mr_me

[Flojomojo]

Can we get a full-time copyright lawyer in here please?

 

not to comment, just to send a cease-and desist letter