AtariAge + Atari Q&A

[guppy]

1 hour ago, Wildstar said:

Copyright by its definition is the EXCLUSIVE right of a copyright owner to produce copy. ...

Most of what you said is valid.  It's a bit ridiculous to expect Atari SA to be able to collect on ROM image copies of games that were made without authorization.  Even if they offered an "honor-system" way for people who have a copy to pay them for the copy, that would only cover the stuff that Atari hold the rights to... 

 

The way forward, if you ask me, is for Atari SA to have their legal department come up with a solution that serves their interests as well as those of the community, and be rather more forgiving, lenient, and liberal with regard to the emulation scene and especially the homebrew scene.  Atari SA could release existing works first published prior to [some date] to the Community, with express pre-approval granted for certain community-enshrined activities such as hacking and using Atari's trademarked titles, characters, etc. in new or derivative works, with provisions for some process to transition a work from unofficial, non-commercial "fan project" to officially published commercial work.

 

My personal desire is to see existing copyright law cleaned up and reformed, but that's a very complicated topic tangential to this discussion.  But essentially I'd like to see reduced terms for copyright in certain types of media (especially video games).  The extended terms that we're living under now are vastly longer than the original term defined in US law.  I would also like to see "Fair Use" expanded and strengthened, so that things like time shifting, platform shifting, copies for backup and archival purposes, etc. are all recognized rights that consumers have, and extend that to enable easy copy of commercially dead (and dormant) copyrighted works, as well as expanded rights for things like derivative works that would explicitly cover things like romhacks, fanfic, unauthorized remakes, demakes, etc.  And even bootlegs -- if the current copyright holder declines to supply the market with a new run of an out-of-print work, there should be an accelerated, expedited process for bringing that work into the Public Domain sooner than normal expiration. 

 

That's all a dream and likely will not all come to pass.  People will need to lobby congress for anything like that to be possible. 

 

But even without copyright reform, Atari SA could grant an open license to anyone who wishes to make use of it, granting much if not all of the above, with respect to those IPs that they hold, or a portion thereof.

[M-S]

46 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

Atari is likely not going to pay $100k a year per hardware engineer to make such components if all they would get is a few hundred sales and maybe only $75k to $100k. No profit or they be spending more than they make. Additionally, as a private for-profit company, they are required by law to pay employees and can not require employees to volunteer their time to the company... as a general rule of employment laws. There are nuances of labor laws per country. The homebrew hardware engineering are done by people as hobby project or they own their own business and as owners are not subject to labor laws regarding their own labor as it would a regular employee.

I think systems like the ones by Analogue consoles took so long in development because they try to remake an entire system within a single chip.

1 hour ago, bent_pin said:

Indeed. I have a pile of each and some fresh TIAs too.

I assume at least the TIAs are new old stock or pulled from dead consoles, right?

These chips are the same ones inside a lot of 2600s not made by Atari, like the CCE Supergame and Dactar consoles, but this company just never stopped making them, it seems.

If you get caught with an illegal opcode you can just argue that it is for personal consumption, not distribution.

[+bent_pin]

1 minute ago, Wildstar said:

Technically, to validate if an FPGA version of a cpu chip is 100% compatible, all software will have to be tested. If people didn't use those illegal opcodes, life be easier but such is life.

I have virtually every ROM, dozens of homebrews, and close to 1000 unique carts for the 2600 alone. I think I can make an accurate assessment, especially after my next order arrives. If the silicon runs it, is it really illegal?

[+bent_pin]

1 minute ago, M-S said:

I assume at least the TIAs are new old stock or pulled from dead consoles, right?

Both. 5 NOS and 50+ pulls.

[+DjayBee]

5 minutes ago, bent_pin said:

If the silicon runs it, is it really illegal?

"Illegal" is only colloquial. Like others have written already: They are not fully documented and developers are discouraged from using them.

And they no longer exist in 6502Cs.

 

From my understanding they are side-effects of how the chip was designed back then.

[+bent_pin]

1 minute ago, DjayBee said:

"Illegal" is only colloquial. Like others have written already: They are not fully documented and developers are discouraged from using them.

And they no longer exist in 6502Cs.

 

From my understanding they are side-effects of how the chip was designed back then.

For completeness any 6507 clone should include all utilized codes, documented or not. I was not aware that they had been removed from the Maria, thanks for that, it's useful in a project of mine.

[Wildstar]

4 minutes ago, guppy said:

Most of what you said is valid.  It's a bit ridiculous to expect Atari SA to be able to collect on ROM image copies of games that were made without authorization.  Even if they offered an "honor-system" way for people who have a copy to pay them for the copy, that would only cover the stuff that Atari hold the rights to... 

 

The way forward, if you ask me, is for Atari SA to have their legal department come up with a solution that serves their interests as well as those of the community, and be rather more forgiving, lenient, and liberal with regard to the emulation scene and especially the homebrew scene.  Atari SA could release existing works first published prior to [some date] to the Community, with express pre-approval granted for certain community-enshrined activities such as hacking and using Atari's trademarked titles, characters, etc. in new or derivative works, with provisions for some process to transition a work from unofficial, non-commercial "fan project" to officially published commercial work.

 

My personal desire is to see existing copyright law cleaned up and reformed, but that's a very complicated topic tangential to this discussion.  But essentially I'd like to see reduced terms for copyright in certain types of media (especially video games).  The extended terms that we're living under now are vastly longer than the original term defined in US law.  I would also like to see "Fair Use" expanded and strengthened, so that things like time shifting, platform shifting, copies for backup and archival purposes, etc. are all recognized rights that consumers have, and extend that to enable easy copy of commercially dead (and dormant) copyrighted works, as well as expanded rights for things like derivative works that would explicitly cover things like romhacks, fanfic, unauthorized remakes, demakes, etc.  And even bootlegs -- if the current copyright holder declines to supply the market with a new run of an out-of-print work, there should be an accelerated, expedited process for bringing that work into the Public Domain sooner than normal expiration. 

 

That's all a dream and likely will not all come to pass.  People will need to lobby congress for anything like that to be possible. 

 

But even without copyright reform, Atari SA could grant an open license to anyone who wishes to make use of it, granting much if not all of the above, with respect to those IPs that they hold, or a portion thereof.

I agree that I oversimplified some stuff for some brevity. There are a lot of complicated nuances as well. Also tangential and I had other points I wanted to get to. I can agree with you. There could be limits like Atari reserves the rights to make derivatives and sequels to such games but the originals unmodified and those that only had Crack hacks done but does no further substantial change to the games could perhaps be open license or something like that. I encourage Atari to making new games. Perhaps, some that runs on original hardware in cartridge format and digital downloads that you purchase. If Atari wishes to acquire license to publish games from third part devs, I'd consider such arrangement as a third-party developer.

[Wildstar]

12 minutes ago, bent_pin said:

I have virtually every ROM, dozens of homebrews, and close to 1000 unique carts for the 2600 alone. I think I can make an accurate assessment, especially after my next order arrives. If the silicon runs it, is it really illegal?

Still takes time for sure.

[Wildstar]

17 minutes ago, guppy said:

Most of what you said is valid.  It's a bit ridiculous to expect Atari SA to be able to collect on ROM image copies of games that were made without authorization.  Even if they offered an "honor-system" way for people who have a copy to pay them for the copy, that would only cover the stuff that Atari hold the rights to... 

 

The way forward, if you ask me, is for Atari SA to have their legal department come up with a solution that serves their interests as well as those of the community, and be rather more forgiving, lenient, and liberal with regard to the emulation scene and especially the homebrew scene.  Atari SA could release existing works first published prior to [some date] to the Community, with express pre-approval granted for certain community-enshrined activities such as hacking and using Atari's trademarked titles, characters, etc. in new or derivative works, with provisions for some process to transition a work from unofficial, non-commercial "fan project" to officially published commercial work.

 

My personal desire is to see existing copyright law cleaned up and reformed, but that's a very complicated topic tangential to this discussion.  But essentially I'd like to see reduced terms for copyright in certain types of media (especially video games).  The extended terms that we're living under now are vastly longer than the original term defined in US law.  I would also like to see "Fair Use" expanded and strengthened, so that things like time shifting, platform shifting, copies for backup and archival purposes, etc. are all recognized rights that consumers have, and extend that to enable easy copy of commercially dead (and dormant) copyrighted works, as well as expanded rights for things like derivative works that would explicitly cover things like romhacks, fanfic, unauthorized remakes, demakes, etc.  And even bootlegs -- if the current copyright holder declines to supply the market with a new run of an out-of-print work, there should be an accelerated, expedited process for bringing that work into the Public Domain sooner than normal expiration. 

 

That's all a dream and likely will not all come to pass.  People will need to lobby congress for anything like that to be possible. 

 

But even without copyright reform, Atari SA could grant an open license to anyone who wishes to make use of it, granting much if not all of the above, with respect to those IPs that they hold, or a portion thereof.

Personally, I agree with you. As a third party developer, I wouldn't care how many back up games. I would care if someone had my game on a ROM site for free download while I am still marketing a game. A possibility I might make an online multi-player 2d or 3d game for the new VCS or a successor model. In that model, the game could be freely downloaded because I would have a different way of monetization.  This relieves me of the basic concerns of some ROM site. But non-MMO type games, I have to be mindful of unlawful copying. 

 

As a business, I have to reasonably protect my rights and my livelihood. If I wasn't going to continue making a game, I would look at the benefitting the community and myself and my rights to make future games based on it. You know, franchise protection. 

 

I understand the need to protect and preserve the classics and my own games over time. 

[+bent_pin]

23 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

Still takes time for sure.

That I have in abundance.

[leech]

6 hours ago, zzip said:

Yeah ST also had a bunch of companies producing development tools so anybody with a standard ST could get started developing games, didn't need Atari knocking at your door to beg you to port something.    For consoles you need to obtain a dev system.   Jaguar had a Falcon-based dev system that by all accounts didn't work very well and had documentation that was problematic.   So for a developer, developing games for it was a headache, for an audience that wasn't guaranteed to materialize, add in the Tramiels tendancy to burn bridges, it's not surprising they'd have trouble attracting developers to an unproven and complicated system.

I think there was a kit with the Falcon or with the TT030, right?  Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.  I wonder if anyone still has some of that old devkit stuff, would be interesting to see it.  If they only could dev with the Falcon, would have made it very clear why so few games were made, since so few Falcons were...

[Wildstar]

11 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

Personally, I agree with you. As a third party developer, I wouldn't care how many back up games. I would care if someone had my game on a ROM site for free download while I am still marketing a game. A possibility I might make an online multi-player 2d or 3d game for the new VCS or a successor model. In that model, the game could be freely downloaded because I would have a different way of monetization.  This relieves me of the basic concerns of some ROM site. But non-MMO type games, I have to be mindful of unlawful copying. 

 

As a business, I have to reasonably protect my rights and my livelihood. If I wasn't going to continue making a game, I would look at the benefitting the community and myself and my rights to make future games based on it. You know, franchise protection. 

 

I understand the need to protect and preserve the classics and my own games over time. 

If I have a game people wanting to make unofficial "fan project" based on it, I would consider some kind of licensing. They would be unofficial as "non-canon" like some types of unofficial non-canon star trek projects. If commercial, there may be royalties to pay from sales. If, non-commercial, or below a certain threshold, no royalties but maybe a nominal fee if any. Such agreement would require some proper credits and copyright notice.

[+DjayBee]

56 minutes ago, bent_pin said:

For completeness any 6507 clone should include all utilized codes, documented or not. I was not aware that they had been removed from the Maria, thanks for that, it's useful in a project of mine.

Sorry, I was confused. I meant the 65C02. 

 

But I guess that you are right that the 6507 has them as well. 

[+bent_pin]

4 hours ago, DjayBee said:

Sorry, I was confused. I meant the 65C02. 

 

But I guess that you are right that the 6507 has them as well. 

Now I'll need to do a deeper dig into Sally to see if they are there and how they react. I'm thinking I'll probably just write an organized fuzzer. 

 

Boy did I follow the path leading this thread off-topic.

[Raiu]

4 hours ago, Albert said:

https://atari.com/pages/careers

 

 ..Al

Yeah, I was mostly kidding (mainly because I'd already checked that page).  I am a programmer, not a sales or e-commerce manager.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Raiu said:

Yeah, I was mostly kidding (mainly because I'd already checked that page).  I am a programmer, not a sales or e-commerce manager.

I figured I'd link to it even if you weren't serious.  

 

 ..Al

[Bakasama]

7 minutes ago, Raiu said:

Yeah, I was mostly kidding (mainly because I'd already checked that page).  I am a programmer, not a sales or e-commerce manager.

A programmer you say? Atari might have need for someone like you.

[CapitanClassic]

9 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

 

15 hours ago, Wildstar said:

Technically, you can not legally make even backup copies unless permission was explicitly granted in written form.

Another correction, you absolutely can make a backup copy, no permission needs to be explicitly granted, because it is implied.

 

USA copyright

It does say, “special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy,” so it might be possible to prevent a backup from being made, but you have it reversed. They have to explicitly forbid it in the license. (Not the other way around)

 

Your response is regarding ROM sites that are distributing the copyrighted material. You could just admit you are wrong instead of changing the subject to make it look like you were right. But this is the internet, you can continuously be wrong if you like. Everything before the — I added was regarding ROM sites, but after that was regarding personal use of software you own a copy of.

 

Quote

Technically, if you don't own the copyrights, you do not have any legal distribution rights. All these download sites for game roms and disk images are technically engaged in copyright infringement. — Technically, you can not legally make even backup copies unless permission was explicitly granted in written form. Even then, when you sell your copy, you must destroy the backup copies except one working copy and you must give it to whoever bought your original copy. You may not legally retain any copy of it on any media because you only paid for that game once. (Unless you bought multiple times the same game). That's the law. 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by CapitanClassic
Added context

[Razzie.P]

This is needed here...

 

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

[Albert]

This is fun and all, but I would appreciate if we could get back on track.  Some of these subjects are definitely better explored in their own threads.

 

Thank you,

 

 ..Al

[PlaidMouse]

Will the online JS7800 (https://raz0red.github.io/js7800/?cart=https://atariage.com/forums/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=802867) still be available to access and play games on? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers this.

[Wildstar]

40 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

Your response is regarding ROM sites that are distributing the copyrighted material. You could just admit you are wrong instead of changing the subject to make it look like you were right. But this is the internet, you can continuously be wrong if you like. Everything before the — I added was regarding ROM sites, but after that was regarding personal use of software you own a copy of.

 

 

Read the U.S. copyright law. The ROM sites are not protected by fair-use laws unless something changed in the last couple years. Congress never legislated the uploading of copyrighted content on a website for people to download for free or any price without documentable proof of licensing or acquisition of rights the copyright holder, just because the game is old and not available on the market. You have to wait until copyright expires. 

 

Fair Use allows you to take screenshots of game which contains pictorial content that is covered by copyrights in stuff like articles, academic research paper and stuff like that. Once copyright expires then it is public domain. 

 

Although a few countries might have made legislation that allows exactly that but here's the rubbing problem. Even if a ROM website is on a server located in such countries, if a person from say, the U.S., where such sites are illegal.... the ROM site is liable to being sued in U.S. jurisdiction because of the recipient was in the U.S. The ROM site legally is suppose to restrict access to such from country like the U.S. 

 

The ROM site is exporting these ROMs into the US, digitally via internet. Once a ROM site is on the internet then they are potentially required to comply with the laws of every country in the world. 

 

There is some issue inconsistency with copyright laws throughout the countries of the world. Lawyers filing lawsuits against ROM sites will beat up on the ROM sites in courts even questioning on control measures. 

 

ROM sites are not violating just merely because they host rom images. How do they comply? Lawful agreements with copyright holders being the most recognized method. 

 

I am namely talking about the myriad of ROM sites where there was absolutely no permission ever granted for so many of the games because there was no documented permission by the copyright holder. One has to also be careful to not just take permission from original authors because if they sold the rights, the original authors no longer have the rights to license or even declare them into public domain. The authors have to actively own the intellectual property rights in order to declare it into public domain. 

 

Just because the site may be hosted in a country where one can legally host ROMs, they can't legally distribute the ROMs by any means to any recipient within countries where the ROMs would be illegal.  Not only is the recipient liable but so is the ROM site and they can file the case either in the country of the ROM site or in the country of the recipient. 

 

The copyright law is a problem. Copyrights, unlike trademark, do not require the game to be continuously available to preserve the rights. A copyright owner can choose to keep something off the market so the games can become rare and increase the value of how much people would pay for limited run re-releases. Illegal copies would flood the market and when the exact game can be downloaded for free, it removes the incentive for many to pay any amount, especially if there is absolutely zero bits difference the legal copy and the illegal copy. It is same binary. That is part of why copyright owners and their lawyers sue people civilly and even criminally. 

 

When it comes to backup copies, you can't legally back your copy in a way to enable distribution of copies derived from the original or a copy of original without permission from the copyright holder. You also may not make a bunch of backup. Usually only one backup copy of any original has been universally accepted in most cases. When you have more than one backup copy, there's a problem. When you give away or sell a copy, you must give or sell the original with that copy and retain no other backup copies at all... except if you legally bought multiple copies of originals and you can have one backup copy for each legal original you bought that you have not given away copies. Legally, you can not sell or give away backup copies without the original copy. Otherwise, you are not venturing into copyright  infringement.

 

If you legally bought 5 copies. Legally, there can be only 5 backup copies. You can replace a backup copy with a new one and reformat the older backup copy. When you give or sell 4 copies... you would need to give or sell 4 originals with four backups leaving you with one original legal copy and one backup. That's the technicality on the matter. If you sell or give away your five copies, you must sell or give away the five originals and the five backup copies or destroy the backup copies by reformatting (or equivalent) the backups and retain no copies and you would have to purchase an original again.

 

It is not the issue of you actually making a backup copy. However, making a backup copy does not mean you may host the copy in a manner that enables people to download copies from. You need a license (permission) or copyright ownership to do so. If someone made several hundred backup copies, it is more than likely to sell or give away without permission. Courts have ruled on that. While the exact number of backup copies you may make, is not well codified but stems from court cases so one or two might not be an issue. A dozen plus copies or hosting in a manner of public access to downloading copies would be an issue. Sometimes, developers/publishers of the game may state how many backup copies you may have at any one time and stipulate that you may not host any copy of the game anywhere. 

 

If there are technical errors in what I said, then I am in error. OK. However, when it comes to internet hosting of ROMs, you have to comply with the laws of every country and not distribute any illegal goods to any persons in those countries where the roms being downloaded would be an illegal goods. Data transferring game roms from you to another person via computer networking/telecommunication means of any kind is distribution. So if you hosted a rom without copyright holder permission or ownership of the copyrights and I downloaded it, not only I could be sued so can you and because I am in the U.S.  they can file in U.S. Federal court... even if you and your site is not in the U.S. This has been done before and still are done.

 

[Wildstar]

Unfortunately, laws are inconvenient and are restrictive. That is what laws are supposed to do. If we want laws changed to be less restrictive, write a Bill. Find a legislative representative to sponsor it, and get it passed but it will come with challengers to challenge the bill... the opponents to your Bill.  I don't mean legislative representatives being limited to states, territories, Provinces, etc. They can be national parliaments, Congresses, etc. 

 

It might not even be an option depending on country you are at. 

[guppy]

4 hours ago, Wildstar said:

Personally, I agree with you. As a third party developer, I wouldn't care how many back up games. I would care if someone had my game on a ROM site for free download while I am still marketing a game. A possibility I might make an online multi-player 2d or 3d game for the new VCS or a successor model. In that model, the game could be freely downloaded because I would have a different way of monetization.  This relieves me of the basic concerns of some ROM site. But non-MMO type games, I have to be mindful of unlawful copying. 

 

As a business, I have to reasonably protect my rights and my livelihood. If I wasn't going to continue making a game, I would look at the benefitting the community and myself and my rights to make future games based on it. You know, franchise protection. 

 

I understand the need to protect and preserve the classics and my own games over time. 

I figure it's reasonable for Atari to want to continue to reserve certain rights.

But I think that they could be amenable to release certain other rights to the community, for mutual benefit.

For example, if they wanted to encourage the Homebrew community to develop games for legacy systems, they MIGHT be able to grant open license to the community to enable them to develop games using certain trademarks (and not others), in the narrow context of developing software that will run on native legacy/dead hardware.

They could stipulate that they reserve certain rights, such as rights to develop using those same trademarks on other systems (the new VCS, whatever new modern systems they develop in the future, etc.)  

They might also reserve right of first refusal to publish projects using their trademarks.  So if someone develops a homebrew sequel to some Atari trademarked title, Atari would have right to first refusal for publishing a commercial release of that game, and if they decline, then the homebrew dev would be able to release the game through a publisher of their choice.
 

It really depends on how friendly Atari really wants to be.