Emulation Legality 40
PointBlank
writes "Rich Lawrence (author of an Atari 800 emulator)
has written an essay on the legality of emulation and
related issues. If you care about emulation and wish to be
educated on this issues involved, this is a great resource.
"
legal atari roms (Score:1)
So you can download his package, get the ROM files, and use them with another Atari emulator, and be 100% legal.
2 wrongs make a confusion (Score:1)
Ok...the original poster said:
"Claims that a copyright can become invalid
if yu fail to enforce it"
(which is a mistake...the text says specifically
that this is NOT the case...perhaps not worded
well)
Then you talked about patents.
(Patenets Not-Equal (Copyrights OR Trademarks))
If the case involved patentns then it has no
bearing on trademarks or copyrights. you can NOT
lose a copyright (unless you die and then
reanimate 100 years later...)
and if I buy them (Score:1)
I would love to get UltraLHE...
Hell you know what...if I got it I would
download 1 ROM to test it and make sure
it works...then...
I would go out and BUY games for it.
Make a ROM downloader and play it on my
system.
I have no problem buying games. I don't have
ROOM for a game system here...and my monitor blows
away th etelevision.
if (Warez == emulation) { (Score:1)
"All I can say is, you gotta stand up, take responsibility for your actions if you're put down... UltraHLE's authors are a bunch of pussies."
Bullshit. They're smart. Nintendo is a multinational corporation with enough resources to crush any individual person. Is Salmon Rushdie a pussy for going into hiding after a 1 million dollar bounty was placed on his head for writing a book?
AOL was able to crush the guy who wrote AOL4Free. They tried to hold him responsible for the actions of other people who used the program to escape billing for time spent online.
I don't care if they hoped that the emulator would bankrupt Nintendo, it doesn't matter. If the Emulator is a legal piece of software, they aren't responsible for the illegal actions of other people.
LK
EULA's (Score:1)
Not true. IANAL, but, minors can legally sign contracts. They can also break a contract at will until they reach their majority. It is because they can break a contract without threat of breech of contract that companies do not enter into agreements with minors.
The Law and Ethics (Score:1)
However, I just want to draw the line between "breaking the law" and "being in the wrong".
I drive at 40MPH, on long straight wide roads with 30MPH limits, because in this case, I think the limit is stupid, so it's a law I choose to ignore.
I drank beer in pubs when I was 17... and I play games I don't legally own, using MAME. So there.
These games *can't* be bought. Maybe if the copyright owners bundled the ROMS onto a CD which I could buy, for a reasonable price, then I'd buy it. But until then, the only way I can play 'em is by breaking the law, but not my concience.
The Law and Ethics (Score:1)
Of course it's worth mentioning that when the games *can* be bought,
I do. I own a playstation, and I have no intention of ever
playing a gold CD on it (except possibly Thrill Kill, but that's bound to suck)..
What's more, after a few weeks enjoying Snes9X, I went out and bought a SNES. OK, it was second hand, as are all the games, so Nintendo haven't gained a penny, but the point stands....
Copyright and licenses.. (Score:1)
Daniel
Using unauthorized copies is fair use? (Score:1)
The whole point behind a clean-room (read: legal) approach to duplication is that there is the resulting work is original. It might still violate patents, but it can't violate copyrights.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
Says who? (Score:1)
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
"Fair use" is only for commentary (Score:1)
So no, it does not apply here at all.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
Real Reasons for Patent/Copyright Protection (Score:1)
- to promote widespread use of good ideas
There is only one reason for copyrights:
- to allow people to make a living from the work that they produce.
The main rational for granting patents in our free market system is to encourage people to publish
their ideas instead of keeping all good ideas as trade secrets. The reason the government was
allowed to grant patents is that in a true free market system, it was recognized that people
would fear other people stealing their ideas which would result in people keeping all their ideas
secret. With a law that says you can't steal ideas, more ideas flow, society benefits.
The main rational for granting copyrights in our free market system is to allow people who advance
the arts (literature, music, painting, sculpting, etc.) make a living pursuing their craft. Without
copyrights, other people could co-opt the work of artists or ruin their reputations. Then, artistans
would be forced to make a living another way leaving our society culturally void.
Amazingly, two of the biggest flaws in a true free market system were corrected with these two
simple principles. Notice that the main goal is to improve society, I didn't mention individual
motivation or money at all. Also note, that ALL patents and copyrights revert to the public after
some time (although it may be longer than you want).
At least the writers of the US Constitution were wise enough to recogize the flaw and do something
about it. You may not like the solution they came up with, but their solution has proved workable
for over 200 years. How many of you can say that about some code you hacked up?
IMHO, many people have a overblow notion of violating patents. If I was running a company,
I would ignore all patents, get as many as I could and if anyone complains, cross license. Nearly
all major corporations are run this way.
Copyright, is another story. Ironically the problem most people perceive with the copyright
system is due to the big publishers (music, book, etc.), but almost everyone wants to get published
by big publishers. If you think about it, we're getting exactly what we deserve.
sonny bono (Score:1)
original slashdot link: /01/14/0932236.shtml [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
CAUCUS:
Coalition Against Unlimited Copyright in the United States
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ [harvard.edu]
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997
http://cyber.law.harvar d.edu/eldredvreno/evidence/act~1.htm [harvard.edu]
-l
Copyright and licenses.. (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Contributory Copyright Infringement (Score:1)
Does anyone know if there is a precedence for the illegality of devices/software that circumvents protections? (I'd imagine court cases might have to do with dongle cracks more than anything else, I don't expect to see cd checks in there.. )
-Teman
UltraHLE (Score:1)
"Fair use" is only for commentary (Score:1)
for purposes OTHER than commentary can sometimes
be "fair use".
You should read the judgement [seattleu.edu] in the Sega vs Accolade
case that was linked to in the article,
in particular paragraphs 29 onwards
(the second half).
sega vs. accolade: intermediate copying (Score:1)
How do you define ``emulation''? (Score:1)
For that matter, if you load on a machine with an Intel chip running in V86 mode, is it emulation?
Let's say that Syrix, a hypothetical company, makes an Intel x86 clone that uses microcode to do everything. Would running Intel software on that chip be emulation?
Emulation is difficult to define legally, and if it were defined strictly, it would make a lot of the normal use of software illegal.
Would running a program on a 386 or compatible chip with the DR[0-4] control registers set up for debugging mode be considered emulation?
Cheers, Joshua. (My website is down. Roadrunner only does password resets through postal mail. .)
Did you know that if you post a comment to slashdot with the hostname in uppercase (i.e, http://SLASHDOT.ORG/comments.pl), it tells you that space aliens have eaten your data?
How do you define ``emulation''? (Score:1)
What about the fact that many of these video games are probably being bought by minors and then opened by minors without any adult's consent? Most of the kids I know who play video games wouldn't know the difference between an EULA and Europe. They probably assume that the sticker is there to keep dust out.
Finally, just what does the EULA on some new N64 games state about renting/sublicensing? Almost every commercial software EULA I've seen specifically does not permit such leasing of software. That will go over like a lead balloon with most of the people I know who play video games. They rent almost everything they play.
Cheers, Joshua (the only video game I play is Alleycat, and I play that on my 1981 IBM PC with C/GA and a TV--no emulation there!)
I wish I could change that signature. It's supposed to be a tribute to --jon. Postel, but I can't get my userpreferences-page to change the signature!<screams again>
Significant Inaccuracy (Score:1)
Patent/Copyright vs Competition (Score:1)
-sk
But, copyrights are like slavery (Score:1)
I thought that I said (and I could be wrong) was that there needed to be a balance in the market between the rights of creators and the rights of their competitors.