Emulators

[EldKatt]

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.

[Pumaman]

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.

"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.

[Nacho]

Talking of IDs... I am waiting for info for making the fake ID cards for mittens... Go to the mittens thread for more info...  :

[Snarky]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gilbert]

Anyway, play Chodius.

[monkey0506]

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).

[Bad Voo-doo man]

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

[EldKatt]

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 and this rather longer Wikipedia article on the subject of fair use serve well to point out how complicated the idea of "fair use" is.

[Sylpher]

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.

I 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.

[Blackthorne]

I love all the "justification" for ROMS and emulators.


It's illegal, period.

Embrace your inner pirate.


Bt

[Babar]

actually, as mentioned, emulators are legal. ROMs however, are not

* Babar  embraces his pirateness

[Snarky]

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.

[Mr Jake]

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.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

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.

[BerserkerTails]

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.

[InCreator]

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...

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Great logic. Only one fundamental flaw. You don't die for not playing certain games.

[Privateer Puddin']

though you should die if you can but don't

[InCreator]

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

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

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.

[Mr Jake]

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