Can anyone tell me some decent emulator sites? I got stacks of Roms from my mates, all for either Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, NES or SNES. Now i just need to download some decent emulators so i can play the damn things.
Cheers,
Blake
Well... I think it would be enough:
Zophar's Domain (http://www.zophar.net)
Vintage Gaming Network (http://www.vg-network.com/)
and our friend:
GOOGLE (http://www.google.com)
Are emulators even legal ... ?
I don't think discussion about roms is allowed in these forums... It's illegal, but I don't think the emulators are. You can go to www.emulator-zone.com and I'll suppose you'll delete the roms within 24 hours like you are supposed to do :=
yep. sweet. thanks for the links guys.
Mmmm... I don't know if this "It's illegal, but if I were you I'd go to *link* ;)" or "I don't know how to get this program, but if you PM me I could say a link... ;)" stuff is correct... :(
We usually do it, but we might put in a difficult situation to the hoster of the forums. I am not saying this directly to Guybrush, it is just a thought that came to my mind and I'd like to mention it, as a member, not as a moderator. I am not one and I don't preted to be, but I think this put us in danger and I think it's my duty :-\.
I know many of us did it... I passed a Corel Draw emulator via msn :-[ We all want to help, but I think we should do it via PM and leave the forums clean of illegal stuff (if posting links is illegal, I am not sure...) but it's better to prevent risks, IMHO.
As this website (http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp) states, ROMs are always a copyright infringement, and it doesn't matter if you're using them for backup, or will delete them within 24 hours. Those ideas are just examples of the many urban legends regarding copyright laws that spread so swiftly. I don't know whether emulators as such are illegal (a quick skimming of the above-linked website doesn't reveal much) but it's quite possible. As Farlander says, I think we should avoid it here.
I'm pretty sure emulators are legal, not all ROMs are of copyrighted games and emulators can be used for development purposes.
Copyright isn't about what you use the stuff for. Pirating Windows XP isn't legal just because you can use it to develop Windows XP applications. However, the Nintendo FAQ doesn't really state that emulators are illegal, instead saying that they're unauthorized (by Nintendo, that is) and that the ROMs are illegal.
Since they would probably be glad if they were able to state clearly that emulators are illegal and that's the end of that, I think we can assume that emulators per se are legal. This website (http://www.gameboy-advance.net/site/legal_info.htm) supports that.
And as regards ROMs, I was of course talking about ROMs that are protected by some sort of copyright, which goes for any commercial game one might want to download.
That Nintendo link, EldKatt, was a useful/interesting read but your assessment isn't correct, according to the site itself. Ã, It doesn't say that they're always copyright infringement. Ã, It says that it's always illegal to download a ROM (without being specific as to whether it's for backup, play, distribution, or whatnot). Ã, However, using a backup device to make an archival copy of your data is not illegal, provided you (the current license-holder) maintain possession of it and only use one instance of the program at a time. Ã, So, downloading Super Mario 3 would be illegal even if you own the cartridge (though the distinction between backup methods probably couldn't be proven in court), but using a backup device would not (unless that particular device was made specifically illegal). Ã, Playing the backup on your PC (even if you didn't play it on the NES) would be questionable as there's probably a distinction in the EULA concerning the hardware used for the software. Ã,Â
Additionally, emulators typically aren't illegal but they often require copies of the BIOS ROM from the console. Ã, Copying and modifying or distributing this proprietary information is illegal. Ã, Using an SNES emulator to play a public domain, non-copyrighted ROM would be legitimate (provided that calls specific to the SNES BIOS aren't used). Ã, I don't understand all the confusion since the rules make common sense. Ã, You can safeguard what you bought but getting something for free isn't legal unless the company is offering it or the author has given it as freeware, public domain, etc. (The same goes for trialware used past its trial-length and so-called abandonware). Ã, Whether or not these things would be enforced, and whether or not I personally violate the above is another matter. Ã,Â
Of course, since you've divulged the fact that you'd be using the emulator to play illegal software, anybody providing information could be considered an accomplice. Ã, Regardless, this particular request is answered (per usual) by a quick google search. www.snes9x.com appears right at the top.
You're right, YakSpit. I should've specified that I was talking about downloading ROMs, not ROMs as a concept.
The reason behind all the confusion is probably all the rumours that people gladly spread, particularly about copyright-related issues. Because of people's strong will to justify their theft of intellectual property, such pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo abounds on ROM sites, and indeed any warez site. And I don't think anyone ever so slightly involved with music production can have missed the popular myth about how using a certain number of seconds of a copyrighted recording is perfectly alright. It's just such a convenient thing to believe that people put ethics and common sense on the shelf.
As far as I can recall emualtors are 100% legal, it's the games that you download that are illegal (some aren't copyrighted though so those are legal). If you think about somehting like scummvm... thats an emulator and it's legal.
As far as teh delete in 24 hours rule, or only for backup. Those are rumours, although I doubt anyone would find out if you did have a ROM on your PC.
I've found I've had real difficulties buying some games and find emulation and rom downloads the only way. But now somehting which should be cool:
The new Nintendo console (Nintendo Revolution / N5 or whatever it has been dubbed) will have the ability to download and play NES, SNES and N64 games for a small fee, and also play gamecube games, DVD's. If it can download games then I'm guessing it will have a built in hard-drive so no more memory cards.
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 21/06/2005 11:43:10
It's just such a convenient thing to believe that people put ethics and common sense on the shelf.
Agreed. Too many arguments about whether or not something is legal stem from a more basic question of, "What can I get away with?"
I've got a gray-market view of it, myself. If I can't acquire the software through reasonable means (purchase from store, site, e-bay) then I see nothing wrong with downloading it, at least in the case of older games. Maybe that's just more self-justification but it's less questionable than somebody asking where they can D/L Doom 3.
There are some countries where software copyrights aren't recognized, right? I'm assuming a lot of the world has similar laws to the US concerning creative works, but Flukeblake could be from Tibet where the mountain monks play Mario Kart ROMs from dusk till dawn without worrying about kharmic retribution.
Yeah I agree with the grey-market way of looking at things, and this is a similar argument to the abandonware scene. The thing is, as magintz said, soon enough on the Nintendo Revolution, you will be able to download the old games, so the grey-market view will not apply as the games will be available. I think thats a good thing that Nintendo are doing.
Quote from: Count Zor on Tue 21/06/2005 09:08:39
Are emulators even legal ... ?
Interestingly enough, yes. Creating an emulator for most anything is perfectly legal, and there have been failed attempts to legally stop emulators. Some people even write fan roms for some systems. Of course, 99% of ordinary game roms are copyrighted and not distributable, and I'm not convinced that'd stop with the NinRev, because of potential tiny-print clauses.
The way I see it, when the price of games is reasonable and the games themselves aren't lacking, I'll buy them. I already buy games that excite my soul, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay $100 for f*cking Zoo Keeper. I download roms of games I can't buy anymore, or games I want to test (seriously, I'm NOT paying $100 on faith) or games that just aren't good enpugh to buy but I want a bit of a look at.
I don't give a crap if it's illegal. Who really cares? I support decent games and the rest can start picking up their game (whoa, pun! O_O) if they want my money.
If you don't want it mentioned on the forum, fair enough. I myself have tonnes of roms and emulators and if someone makes a really good game, neither having the rom nor a raging hell hound could stop me from buying it. I consider it as illegal as all those movies I had taped on VHS when I was a kid, or all those games I never paid a cent for when I had an amiga and lots of friends with amigas.
Software/Video Games are and have been, for the most part, as rediculously over-priced as CDs.
I have over 80 gig of mp3.
Y'all can draw your own conclusions about my Emulator/ROM status ;)
Although I must admit ... we found an old NES in Sara's parent's house (which was her's when she was a kid (the nintendo, not the house)) and I play the hell outta that sucker! I got about 20 games from eBay and I still, on a daily basis, play Dr. Mario. BUT, on eBay you get the games for like .99 USD (around 4 dollars after shipping). I'll gladly pay that price.
I own a NES, and have a SNES emulator. I play some games on it, like Somethingawfuls version of Final Fantasy, on the emulator. On the NES i play Super Mario bros 3, Track & Field, etc.
Blake, you mat be interested in MAME. It is my understanding that if you own the circuit board containing the ROM then it is perfectly legal to use it. Anyway here is a releveant FAQ from the MAME site.
http://www.mame.net/mamefaq.html#r06
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 21/06/2005 11:43:10
Because of people's strong will to justify their theft of intellectual property
"Intellectual property" is not property, it is a limited right granted by the government for a limited time. Concerted lobbying efforts by powerful vested interests are responsible for the notion that individuals or corporations "own" information as well as intellectual and creative products, and the term "intellectual property" is itself a blatant propaganda coup (comparable to "pro-choice" or "the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act").
In a time when media industries are working to extend the reach of copyright into perpetuity (recent proposed EU law), and eradicating fair use through legal and technological means, it is important that we resist their attempts to make us think in terms of "their property".
Hence, copyright violation is not theft.
That, of course, does not make it right.
It's not theft in that I'm not stealing an idea from someone's head and they lose it. It's just a convenient term to use and I feel it embodies the concept well. It's not property in the way that your favourite coffee mug is property, but it describes the notion that I as an artist should be able to practice some control over the things I create.
But that's all irrelevant. More importantly, "intellectual property" is, to the best of my knowledge, a widely accepted term for any product of somebody's mind that can be protected by copyright or patent laws.
When copyright moves away from protecting the rights of individual artists, and towards helping corporations make more money than they deserve, something's wrong, though. The whole notion of copyright per se isn't to blame for that, though.
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 21/06/2005 11:43:10
I don't think anyone ever so slightly involved with music production can have missed the popular myth about how using a certain number of seconds of a copyrighted recording is perfectly alright. It's just such a convenient thing to believe that people put ethics and common sense on the shelf.
But that one is actually real. You're allowed to use up to 10% or 30 seconds of a piece of music (whichever is less) without paying for it under the Fair Use exemptions of copyright laws.
Quote"Intellectual property" is not property, it is a limited right granted by the government for a limited time.
The other interesting point about this is that if you buy a piece of software, you don't actually own the software, but you own a license to use it. Therefore, in theory just having a pirated copy of software is not illegal in itself, but if you actually use it then you are breaking the law since you don't have a license to do so.
It's a bit like the fact that the law says it's not illegal to have a fake ID, it's only illegal if you try to use it.
Talking of IDs... I am waiting for info for making the fake ID cards for mittens... Go to the mittens thread for more info... ::)
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 21/06/2005 22:03:54
It's not theft in that I'm not stealing an idea from someone's head and they lose it. It's just a convenient term to use and I feel it embodies the concept well.
I disagree, but that's clearly an ideological position.
QuoteIt's not property in the way that your favourite coffee mug is property, but it describes the notion that I as an artist should be able to practice some control over the things I create.
I agree with that, but I also think it's critical that such control is not absolute. It's important to remember that the origins of "intellectual property" are pragmatic, and intended for the public good. They are not based on a notion of "natural rights" (unlike property rights, civil rights or human rights, for instance), just on what would produce the most beneficial effect. Patents, for example, were instituted to encourage people to disclose their ideas (instead of keeping them as business secrets). Protecting ideas from being copied by others was not the reason for the law, just the means by which it achieved its end. I think it's hard to argue that the current regime, with its nearly indefinite copyright protection and near unlimited control, is the most beneficial system for the general public. (For one thing, it encourages widespread copyright violation.) Rolling back the law to its original 14 years of protection (with the option to extend to another 14) would be a good start. Laws against any attempt to thwart fair use would go nicely with it. Of course, that's never going to happen.
QuoteBut that's all irrelevant. More importantly, "intellectual property" is, to the best of my knowledge, a widely accepted term for any product of somebody's mind that can be protected by copyright or patent laws.
The other examples I mentioned are also widely accepted terms. We should still be aware that they are not neutral terms, but embody the assumptions of one side of a controversial issue.
QuoteWhen copyright moves away from protecting the rights of individual artists, and towards helping corporations make more money than they deserve, something's wrong, though. The whole notion of copyright per se isn't to blame for that, though.
I actually have no problem with corporations making money off copyright and other "intellectual property", and wouldn't presume to judge how much money they "deserve". I do have a problem with special interest groups buying off the government to change the rules in their favor, and against the best interests of the general public.
Anyway, play Chodius.
Yeah...Emulation is about as illegal as searching google for "Kazaa Lite K++", downloading an english version from a german site (http://www.netzwelt.de/software-download/3909-kazaa-lite.html) and then not even being able to connect to the network! I think that emulation of games that are no longer sold by the producers should be made legal. If someone wants the rights to be able to say who can and can't use their software, I feel they should at least sell it to those who don't yet own it, but would like to.
For example, as some of you may already know, LucasArts no longer sells The Secret of Monkey Island or Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge. As a huge fan of the game series (and at the time I was finally looking to purchase a legal copy of MI2), I was very disappointed last Christmas when my parents had agreed to purchase for me the Mega Monkey Bundle Pack, only to find that it had ceased to exist. The entire surplus LA owned of MI1 and 2 is now gone. For those who have only recently learned (or have yet to learn) of the game series, this would come as a shocking blow.
In fact, my parents looked on eBay, and only found 1 (count them, ONE) copy of MI2 in the US. All other copies I saw were in the UK (and were priced way out of the price range). As it was my parents ended up paying around $50.00 USD for Monkey Island Madness (1 & 2). This isn't the way things are supposed to work.
Well, I think that's about it for this rant. I hope someone actually reads this (and at least agrees with me on some level).
znes is an ok emulator, just google it. As for roms, I've got over 6,000 snes roms, (not all are english) if you want, and you use bitlord or azueres(sp??), just pm me and I'll send ya the torrent
Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 21/06/2005 22:16:39
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 21/06/2005 11:43:10
I don't think anyone ever so slightly involved with music production can have missed the popular myth about how using a certain number of seconds of a copyrighted recording is perfectly alright. It's just such a convenient thing to believe that people put ethics and common sense on the shelf.
But that one is actually real. You're allowed to use up to 10% or 30 seconds of a piece of music (whichever is less) without paying for it under the Fair Use exemptions of copyright laws.
But I'm afraid it's not real. There's no hard and fast time limit for what is fair use. The "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (U.S. Copyright Act of 1976) is
one of the factors one looks at when determining whether something is fair use, but that's just one of several factors, some, I'd say, more important. And more to the point there's no fixed number of seconds or percents. This article (http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html) and this rather longer Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) on the subject of fair use serve well to point out how complicated the idea of "fair use" is.
WARNING: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violaters will be prosecuted.This has been and continues to be printed in every Nintendo game manual. The "Back-up" rule doesn't apply to any medium except where data can be corrupted by the user (like on a computer). You are not allowed to make a back-up of the rom. Period.
Hardware that will hook the game up to the computer so you can emulate the game directly is a whole nother ballgame.
QuoteI think that emulation of games that are no longer sold by the producers should be made legal.
This is too risky. If a copyright holder doesn't maintain their rights on their 'property' they run the risk of losing their copyright. You can't expect them to start producing the game again just so 10 people can buy it and you can't expect them to relax on the copyright violations because they may have future plans for the characters, game, artwork, story...ect.
I love all the "justification" for ROMS and emulators.
It's illegal, period.
Embrace your inner pirate.
Bt
actually, as mentioned, emulators are legal. ROMs however, are not
/me embraces his pirateness
Quote from: Sylpher on Thu 23/06/2005 23:53:59
WARNING: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violaters will be prosecuted.
This has been and continues to be printed in every Nintendo game manual. The "Back-up" rule doesn't apply to any medium except where data can be corrupted by the user (like on a computer). You are not allowed to make a back-up of the rom. Period.
Just because something is printed in a manual or EULA does not make it ture. Software companies are well known to make claims that have no basis in law and are not enforceable. I've no idea whether this is the case here, but it very well might be.
And data can always be corrupted. There is nothing special about a computer in this regard.
I thought that "back-up" stuff was a myth anyway, since when you buy software you buy a box, the paper the manual was printed on and the CD (software not included), you don't actually buy the software. At least, as far as I am aware.
Wow, lotsa discussion. Well, this is interesting in ethical terms and nothing more - finding out whether you are breaking the law. But since it's very unlikely this can ever be enforced, I mean unless some FBI agents actually tap into your computer violating lotsa privacy rules, it makes no real difference, because no one will ever know unless you say so.
My two cents: morally it's right, because those console are outdated and games are hard to find, and I find myself playing games I was very nostalgic about, and boy it feels nice. Legally it's wrong, because we didn't pay for the games OR the console, and they were hard work from Nintendo or Sega or whatever. Same as abandonware, really.
But like I said, it boils down to two things. You do it or you don't. That's all there is to it, because no one's gonna go and check.
I've basically boiled my opinion on Pirating and Emulation into one solid rule:
If I can go to a local video game store and buy the game, I will. If not, I download it.
Well, eh... if you're so hungry that you'll starve in next 10 minutes and suddenly see a piece of bread lying on sidewalk then you probably eat it to survive instead of returning it to someone who lost it, unless you want your gravestone have a word "idiot" written onto...
Well, eh... if you're going to die unless you get your hands on GTA:SA and ftp servers are full of Hoodlum pirated version of it, well... eh...
:-[
Great logic. Only one fundamental flaw. You don't die for not playing certain games.
though you should die if you can but don't :P
Yes, not die, but come on, what kind of life it would be for kickass GTA lover knowing that there's a game out there, but you can't play it?
Psychological death? Desperation? Depression?
Just kidding :D
But games get really-really expensive when they finally arrive to this side of globe, plus very sucky economics of the country? Retired people here get monthly just as much money to get one copy of the game. Any more questions?
And after all, what a nerdy theme it is! "OMFG I pirated a computer game, now I'll spend next 20 years in jail, next to a bank robber and a serial killer, who are angels compared to my BIG crime"
Still just kidding :D
Then again, Rockstar North gets probably millions for this title.
Every minute brings them another load of cash.
If I had a million, or even few hundred bucks, I would gladly pay for this 3-day fun I had, before it went to recycle bin.
I prefer to pay for things I can permanently use. For example, my legal copy of Half-Life 2 gets usage almost daily, since the Counter-Strike Source included. And I'm statisfied with this buy. But take some day off and go through this "Gonna f*** you you f***** f***...etc" speakey thing which runs bad and has most stupid story and loose characters ever happened in GTA series?
Naah. Better save the money for something really worth it.
If they released a demo, I would never ever bother downloading the split-into-85-50mb-files pirated crap.
I'm loving GTA:SA. It runs perfectly for me. But then, legal copies tend to do that.
You got what you paid for.
I rarely pirate games anymore since alot of games coming out recently have been worth the money. Its not even that much given the UK has access to the wonderful http://www.play.com