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

[John Stamos Mullet]

That is all understood. It points out the problems with copyright laws. What if my neighbour left his old broken bike at the curb with the garbage. That would be stealing as well. Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's ethically wrong.

No - it's not. Trash picking - while gross and sad, is not illegal. It is not illegal to take something from trash left on a public sidewalk. It's only illegal in the case that the item is left in a trash receptacle that remains on private property.

[John Stamos Mullet]

Just don't try to pass off your postcards from the museum as the real thing.

Or sell DVDs or SD cards full of ROMs on eBay.

[icemanxp300]

There is nothing remotely important or preservative about sharing entire romsets of games for home consoles, which sold to the tune of millions of units, and which are readily available on any number of aftermarket sales options.

 

You are missing something here. Lets use NES for example. How many of the near 800 NES games are available to play outside of the nes on different systems legally. EXACTLY!

 

Furthermore if you think the rom chips on old games last forever you are sadly mistaken. Myself and others have already been experiencing games that no longer work because rom chips have failed. This is even more of a problem on games that use special chips.

 

So while I am not saying it is legal it can however be viewed as preservation on the most part. Since majority of these games will never see a new release or port and the originals are slowly fading away, having "clean" dumps of these games is likely the only way anyone in the future will be able to experience them.

 

Now if you think games should fade away and only be preserved for show and tell in a museum that is your opinion. I for one think the means to play these games should be available to everyone.

[mr_me]

No - it's not. Trash picking - while gross and sad, is not illegal. It is not illegal to take something from trash left on a public sidewalk. It's only illegal in the case that the item is left in a trash receptacle that remains on private property.

That is debateable. In fact the argument is that the owner has relinquished ownership of the garbage and it is public domain. The exact same arguement has been used regarding abandonware. Both are wrong. Edited August 15, 2018 by mr_me

[John Stamos Mullet]

That is debateable. In fact the argument is that the owner has relinquished ownership of the garbage and it is public domain. The exact same arguement has been used regarding abandonware. Both are wrong.

It's not debatable. It's settled law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood

[mr_me]

It's not debatable. It's settled law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood

All that ruling says is that if you put your property out in public, people can look at it.

 

Anyway, the point is, regarding old video games, we know it's illegal and in some cases we don't care because ethically we don't think it's wrong.

Edited August 15, 2018 by mr_me

[zzip]

Nope. Dude's whole article is based on the "we need to preserve these!" argument which is 100% poo. There is no other art form in the world where anyone of reasonable mind deems it acceptable to make unauthorized copies of original works and distribute them. It's a false narrative devised by cheapskates to attempt to legitimize their nefarious activities.

Read the article. It has examples of companies that in order to rerelease their game, they had to go to the illegal rom sites to get the code because they had not preserved it.

 

This is not unprecedented in other art forms either. The BBC was notorious in the early days for not preserving their shows and for shows that became popular like Dr. Who they turned to "unauthorized collectors" who had copies they weren't supposed to have, to restore old episodes.

[zzip]

these aren't classical works of art. They are mass produced consumer items - toys, no less. Preserving the original source code, or the original case artwork would be equivalent. Making unauthorized exact copies and distributing them without permission is not preservation. If preservation is the goal, they should be on display at the Smithsonian, not backed up on your usb drive.

completely subjective classification.

 

And in the many cases where the original source code wasn't preserved, can't be found or is on a tape or floppy that degraded, what then?

[Tanooki]

Around here when it goes out to the curb it's still someones property. I think it depends if it's in the trash bin or next to it as the bin is owned by the trash company so you've given them your waste, but if it's just on your property outside, trash can next to it or not, it's yours until they take it away -- in either case someone walking up taking it is a thief.

[John Stamos Mullet]

completely subjective classification.

 

And in the many cases where the original source code wasn't preserved, can't be found or is on a tape or floppy that degraded, what then?

Then you're shit out of luck, legally.

 

Thankfully there are a million pirates who have illegal copies.

[Flojomojo]

And in Houston, you can't even masturbate on your bicycle without getting shot.

 

There ain't no justice!

[John Stamos Mullet]

Read the article. It has examples of companies that in order to rerelease their game, they had to go to the illegal rom sites to get the code because they had not preserved it.

 

This is not unprecedented in other art forms either. The BBC was notorious in the early days for not preserving their shows and for shows that became popular like Dr. Who they turned to "unauthorized collectors" who had copies they weren't supposed to have, to restore old episodes.

Being poor at managing your corporations IP assets doesn't invalidate copyrights.

[John Stamos Mullet]

All that ruling says is that if you put your property out in public, people can look at it.

 

Anyway, the point is, regarding old video games, we know it's illegal and in some cases we don't care because ethically we don't think it's wrong.

[zzip]

Short of a game being explicitly given into public domain, there really isn't any legal way to download the roms for games you don't own. Even games from long dead companies, as the rights are more than likely owned by someone even if they don't know it (although I think there are exceptions to this). It doesn't matter how unobtainable a game is or how it never comes up for legitimate sale, it's going to be illegal to download that rom. But in most cases (unless it's a modern game still being sold), I think society treats it like speeding. Sure it's illegal and sometimes you get caught and fined, but it's something that most people are fine with and turn a blind eye to.

One of the problems is there is no iTunes for old games. That would be the missing middle ground. Remember the havoc Napster caused on the music industry? A lot of the same issues at play. Yes some using Napster were straight-up pirates. Others were using it to find rare material they couldn't buy or save them the time of ripping their CD collection which was much slower and less reliable in those days. iTunes and other services came along and gave the legit users a place to go to get what they wanted.

 

GoG kinda filled this niche for old games, but for PC only.

 

The vast majority of old games will never make it to a flashback device, but a service where the copyright holder only needs to provide the rom and a small blurb about it should be a win-win.

 

But then the other issue the the music industry consolidated into a handful of large companies that is easy to strike deals with. While for old games many of the old copyright holders are defunct and not so easy to track down and work with.

[Flojomojo]

 

[zzip]

Being poor at managing your corporations IP assets doesn't invalidate copyrights.

Where did I say it did? I'm just pointing out that the copyright holders don't always preserve their source code as well as you assume they do. Especially not in those days when we didn't have the source control and backup systems we have now.

[John Stamos Mullet]

One of the problems is there is no iTunes for old games. That would be the missing middle ground. Remember the havoc Napster caused on the music industry? A lot of the same issues at play. Yes some using Napster were straight-up pirates. Others were using it to find rare material they couldn't buy or save them the time of ripping their CD collection which was much slower and less reliable in those days. iTunes and other services came along and gave the legit users a place to go to get what they wanted.

 

GoG kinda filled this niche for old games, but for PC only.

 

The vast majority of old games will never make it to a flashback device, but a service where the copyright holder only needs to provide the rom and a small blurb about it should be a win-win.

 

But then the other issue the the music industry consolidated into a handful of large companies that is easy to strike deals with. While for old games many of the old copyright holders are defunct and not so easy to track down and work with.

This is an apt comparison, except the missing component that explains the lack of action is that retro console video games don't have anywhere near the same level of universal appeal as popular music. Not even close.

 

The other thing is - in lieu of a streaming service - most of the major video game players have been consistently been releasing some form of retro game compilations/mini consoles featuring their popular titles for a decade now. These things exist. access to these games exists. The justification that these need to be preserved because they are going to disappear is nonsense. People will stop caring about them long before they become inaccessible.

[Flojomojo]

One of the problems is there is no iTunes for old games. That would be the missing middle ground. Remember the havoc Napster caused on the music industry? A lot of the same issues at play. Yes some using Napster were straight-up pirates. Others were using it to find rare material they couldn't buy or save them the time of ripping their CD collection which was much slower and less reliable in those days. iTunes and other services came along and gave the legit users a place to go to get what they wanted.

 

GoG kinda filled this niche for old games, but for PC only.

 

The vast majority of old games will never make it to a flashback device, but a service where the copyright holder only needs to provide the rom and a small blurb about it should be a win-win.

 

But then the other issue the the music industry consolidated into a handful of large companies that is easy to strike deals with. While for old games many of the old copyright holders are defunct and not so easy to track down and work with.

 

We need a hero ... a disruptor, a visionary, or at least someone who can take one for the team. I think AtGames, RetroBit, Nintendo, and others who have been actively refurbishing old games in new packages with full legal rights are doing the right thing.

 

Problem is, they're literally competing with piracy, which has infinite content, and zero cost. They seem to have made a go of it, but not in a way that is embraced by large swaths of gamerdom. Even with limitless resources and no profit motive, it would be an uphill battle because of how accustomed people have grown to MAME and other emulators.

 

Here's an article about when Steam sucked. Now it's pretty well accepted. It would be "nice" to have a legit licensed service that works the same way. I'd pay $100 a year for something like that, and if the price were lower, many other people would buy in as well. There are at least 3 different subscriptions you can get for Xbox One:

 

- Xbox Live for online multiplayer and a trickle of free games

- Xbox Game Pass for over 100 games for a monthly subscription

- EA Access for a bunch of new and old bundled games from that company

 

There have been others, there will be more. Nothing is taking off like Netflix streaming or YouTube. People seem to like owning stuff. It's a hard problem. I hope someone takes a good shot at it; I'm certainly open to a new model besides "pay $60 for a single thing you might not like."

[zzip]

This is an apt comparison, except the missing component that explains the lack of action is that retro console video games don't have anywhere near the same level of universal appeal as popular music. Not even close.

 

The other thing is - in lieu of a streaming service - most of the major video game players have been consistently been releasing some form of retro game compilations/mini consoles featuring their popular titles for a decade now. These things exist. access to these games exists. The justification that these need to be preserved because they are going to disappear is nonsense. People will stop caring about them long before they become inaccessible.

Those game collections on those collections are only a handful of popular titles. I know because I actually buy them because I actually do believe in paying for what I use. There's a lot of games I enjoy that are not ever going to be on these compilations.

 

But like anything else, if a legit market for something does not exist, a black or gray market will inevitably form.

 

I honestly don't understand where you are coming from on this.

 

You seem to want people to trade these things legally, but then argue that the market is to small to form legally, and then seem upset that a grey/black market forms in the absence of a legit market. Pick a side, you can't have it both ways.

[zzip]

We need a hero ... a disruptor, a visionary, or at least someone who can take one for the team. I think AtGames, RetroBit, Nintendo, and others who have been actively refurbishing old games in new packages with full legal rights are doing the right thing.

 

Problem is, they're literally competing with piracy, which has infinite content, and zero cost. They seem to have made a go of it, but not in a way that is embraced by large swaths of gamerdom. Even with limitless resources and no profit motive, it would be an uphill battle because of how accustomed people have grown to MAME and other emulators.

True, but iTunes was competing against Napster and LimeWire, etc when they launched, it seemed to work out for them

 

- Xbox Live for online multiplayer and a trickle of free games

- Xbox Game Pass for over 100 games for a monthly subscription

- EA Access for a bunch of new and old bundled games from that company

 

There have been others, there will be more. Nothing is taking off like Netflix streaming or YouTube. People seem to like owning stuff. It's a hard problem. I hope someone takes a good shot at it; I'm certainly open to a new model besides "pay $60 for a single thing you might not like."

I think it might be because movies and video are different in how they are consumed. Most get watched once, maybe twice. The rare exception gets watched many times. So buying movies on disc clutters you house with discs that never get watched.

 

Video games and music get replayed repeatly. I would rather own these things than subscribe to a service that provides them. Services can and do remove content without warning. I also don't like the idea that if I stop paying the monthly fee I lose access. What if I fall on hard times and am forced to make cutbacks? These might be reasons why these services aren't taking off like Netflix.

[Flojomojo]

I see what you're saying, and I mostly agree. I think that old games are more like music -- you have your favorites, you take them for a spin, you put them away. You probably have a copy of your favorites songs or albums on at least one kind of media, but unless you're a turntable dude, it might not be the most convenient format.

 

I am subscribing to multiple music streaming services purely because of convenience in different places and devices. I know it's a little spendy and I wish one could do it all, but even so it's less than I used to spend on CDs I would often shelve without constant play.

 

Modern games are definitely more suited to ownership than rental, I'm just saying that older games (let's say pre-Playstation) could be treated more like music. It's funny to me that Spotify, Apple Music, Google Music, Amazon Music, and others basically have the same business model. I'll bet there's a method for game sharing that could take off in a similar way with the right backer.

 

They say Nintendo's service is coming in mid-September and it will be interesting to see how it is received.

[zzip]

I see what you're saying, and I mostly agree. I think that old games are more like music -- you have your favorites, you take them for a spin, you put them away. You probably have a copy of your favorites songs or albums on at least one kind of media, but unless you're a turntable dude, it might not be the most convenient format.

 

I am subscribing to multiple music streaming services purely because of convenience in different places and devices. I know it's a little spendy and I wish one could do it all, but even so it's less than I used to spend on CDs I would often shelve without constant play.

I've collected music my whole life since my father started buying me 45's when I was like 3. When I got an MP3 player, I slowly started ripping and converting them to digital.

 

So when services like Spotify popped up, I already had a large digital music collection that was all paid for that I can put on an SD card in my phone and take anywhere. And I could probably buy a dozen new albums a year for what Spotify charges, and I don't think I buy that many, so for someone like me that kind of service isn't worth the money.

 

If I was starting out with no or a small collection, that would change things though..

[Flojomojo]

I like to explore new (to me) music, just like I do with games.

 

I sometimes wish I were one of those people who just plays one game at a time, for long periods of time. But if I had that level of focus, I'd be better at all kinds of other real life things, with no time for foolish games.

 

Life is a riddle

[John Stamos Mullet]

Those game collections on those collections are only a handful of popular titles. I know because I actually buy them because I actually do believe in paying for what I use. There's a lot of games I enjoy that are not ever going to be on these compilations.

 

But like anything else, if a legit market for something does not exist, a black or gray market will inevitably form.

 

I honestly don't understand where you are coming from on this.

 

You seem to want people to trade these things legally, but then argue that the market is to small to form legally, and then seem upset that a grey/black market forms in the absence of a legit market. Pick a side, you can't have it both ways.

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.

Edited August 15, 2018 by John Stamos Mullet

[Tempest]

Is it just me, or has this thread turned into three people arguing the same points over and over again?