Legally Emulating Games

[rokdcasbah]

realyst's assessment is spot on, or at least it correlates with the little i know of these things.

legally your allowed one backup copy per game, however to be entitled to this copy, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT YOURSELF. anything else, is uncivilized... according to the DMCA laws.

i have never heard about this. there are fair use provisions within copyright law that predate the dmca, but i don't know of anything specific like "one copy only", etc. especially when part of why the dmca was such a big success for hollywood was the fact that, the very act of breaking their encryption is illegal, so you never get the opportunity to exercise that right to fair use, technically you already broke the law.

there was an old "one copy" rule before the dmca that applied to broadcasters and the like, that (i think) said they could only have the one, and the had to destroy it when they were done with it.

QUOTE
and it may have been true WAY back when, but its not now.

you're giving them too much credit...it was just bs. but then, a lot of what nintendo was printing on the game packaging wasn't true either, so...

my 2c: obviously the dmca means bad things for decrypting encrypted roms, or dumping roms with obvious copy-protection mechanisms. also, distributing copyrighted content is obviously illegal. (notice that in the riaa file-sharing cases, people are only ever "busted" for having the files shared in a program that could potentially be distributing them.)

downloading and archiving rom files that others have ripped or distributed isn't quite so bad (still not always legal though). if you have some roms stored on your pc or somewhere else, i doubt anyone's going to break down your door.

the little bit that i know about the eucd is that they are similar to the dmca, if not stricter in certain areas. it has the same language about "technological measures" and how you can't defeat them if they're in place to protect copyright.

copyright is very broken. i can't in good conscience recommend that anyone respect a set of laws that are so obviously unjust. that to me is the moral issue, since i can't really condone lawbreaking either. at least the bastard that signed the dmca was impeached

let's all have a moment of silence for plasticman...

 

[Yrx]

Okay, well yeah, we know that the laws in America concerning emulation are really bad. Does it really matter though? No one ever enforces them.

And I know that someone's going to show me a case of someone downloading every game ever and getting sued, but I'm talking in general.

 

[javaJake]

I had a discussion with a very good friend of mine, and I've come to a conclusion.

What really did it for me was when he asked "Well, what's the intention of the law?" Clearly it is to protect the profits of the companies involved. The rest just plays itself out from there...

 

[imec]

Kind of off topic, but how does GameTap (and friends) pull it off? Is there really a loophole or something?

 

[Clad]

There is no such thing as abandonware. If a company decides to make their game downloadable for free, then it's freeware. And it takes ages for a game to go into public domain.. (commercial games are not old enough yet)

Well, there is no strict definition of what abandonware is yet, but my view on that matter is that an abandonware is a software that used to be commercial, of which no support is given anymore, and, if there still is a legal owner, the software was explicitly given to the public domain.

Meaning an abandonware is a freeware, but all freewares aren't abandonware. (e.g. open source projects, closed source project always intended to be released as freeware, ect...)

 

[naples39]

I had a discussion with a very good friend of mine, and I've come to a conclusion.

What really did it for me was when he asked "Well, what's the intention of the law?" Clearly it is to protect the profits of the companies involved. The rest just plays itself out from there...

It would be much more accurate to say that the goal of the law is to encourage companies to innovate and create new products which people will want to consume.

Consequently, the best way to accomplish this goal is to create a 'fair' system that protects the company's/innovater's ownership rights over their product so that they can profit while maintaining the public's interests of freedom of information, alienability, fair use, etc.... If companies couldn't expect profits, we'd never see the products in the first place.

 

[Yrx]

Kind of off topic, but how does GameTap (and friends) pull it off? Is there really a loophole or something?

I'm pretty sure Gametap has an agreement with the original owners, so they get a cut of the profits.

 

[Xmas]

Here is a short article from Curmudgeon Gamer explaining why basically all emulation is illegal.

I am neither a lawyer nor do I live in the US, but...

QUOTE
[...]it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

... doesn't that exactly fit creation of a ROM image for emulation?

 

[Tobriand]

I am neither a lawyer nor do I live in the US, but...

QUOTE
[...]it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

... doesn't that exactly fit creation of a ROM image for emulation?

It does seem to, doesn't it, although rom hacking and translation would be illegal, of course. Interestingly, I wonder if Backup counts as a legitimate reason to make a copy, since the only machine it is created to me used for (and is an essential part of) is the program later used to restore it to a disk/cartridge/whatever - but *backup* itself seems to be another manner.

It's there, of course, so that software DVD players are still permitted, since many of them stream to the HDD as I understand it in the process of playing a disk. And of course, it would be ridiculous if they were made illegal...

 

[Blah]

But is using the emulator legal? I wouldn't be surprised if its legal to use a (self ripped) ROM but not an emulator.

 

[Tobriand]

I was under the impression that emulators themselves were hard and fast legal. The only instance where it might not be would be if a bios image were needed to use it, and even then, that only causes issues if you distribute the emulator with said bios image; it's still not the emu itself that's illegal.

For profit may be a different kettle of fish. But I'm fairly sure it isn't.

 

[realyst]

@Tobriand, Xmas:

It's legal to medium shift in the US as long as it does not go against anti-circumvention DMCA provisions.

Basically, you can take an unprotected legal MP3, transfer it to an AAC to play it on an iPod, change it to cda to play in you car deck, etc...

However, if there is any protection mechanism on the game(any effort on the part of the producer to limit your ability to copy, even if such is a simple instruction manual you have to flip through to get the answer for a computer asked question), bypassing that security is illegal.

As far back as the NES, there were lockout chips. These were copy protection mechanism. Thus any attempt to copy the device is illegal under DMCA.

The DMCA is so badly written, however, one could almost argue scissors, electrical tape, bolt cutters and WD-40 are illegal.

 

[Sphinxter]

Ummmm, you guys are going to hell!! "But only if reading this outside of Japan and the continental United States while reciting the abc's and standing on your left foot". Ever read the licenses on 1980's warez, freaking insane! There is no way to tell if you're legal or not even with the original arcade machine sitting in your garage without getting at least two different legal opinions.

 

[Blah]

@realyst, I think that with the DMCA, the ones that require the BIOS would be the only legal ones, if that. If "medium-shifting" a ROM is legal, the same goes for the BIOS. Making an emulator that doesn't require a BIOS image requires reverse-engineering of the BIOS, which puts the emulator on shakier grounds. Especially if the BIOS has copy protection code within.

 

[cappuchok]

@Tobriand, Xmas:

It's legal to medium shift in the US as long as it does not go against anti-circumvention DMCA provisions.

However, if there is any protection mechanism on the game(any effort on the part of the producer to limit your ability to copy, even if such is a simple instruction manual you have to flip through to get the answer for a computer asked question), bypassing that security is illegal.

As far back as the NES, there were lockout chips. These were copy protection mechanism. Thus any attempt to copy the device is illegal under DMCA.

@realyst, I think that with the DMCA, the ones that require the BIOS would be the only legal ones, if that. If "medium-shifting" a ROM is legal, the same goes for the BIOS. Making an emulator that doesn't require a BIOS image requires reverse-engineering of the BIOS, which puts the emulator on shakier grounds. Especially if the BIOS has copy protection code within.


I'd like to mention once again, that the Library of Congress granted exemptions to the DMCA specifically intended to facilitate preservation of obsolete computer games and software. If the hardware platform (like the NES) is not "reasonably available in the commercial marketplace" (that is, being sold in retail) you are free to medium-shift and work around lockout chips or whatever in order to preserve and play the game (which at that point can almost only be done by emulating the original platform). BIOS:es of old hardware could also be included in this as a BIOS is software designed to run on a specific hardware platform. Of course, it goes without saying that you must own the actual game cart/CD/GD/whatever, and in the case of emulators requiring BIOS dumps, also the original machine for which the game was developed.

Then again, IANAL, perhaps someone actually IN the US has a better understanding on what's what with these exemptions.

 

[Sphinxter]

@Tobriand, Xmas:

It's legal to medium shift in the US as long as it does not go against anti-circumvention DMCA provisions.

However, if there is any protection mechanism on the game(any effort on the part of the producer to limit your ability to copy, even if such is a simple instruction manual you have to flip through to get the answer for a computer asked question), bypassing that security is illegal.

As far back as the NES, there were lockout chips. These were copy protection mechanism. Thus any attempt to copy the device is illegal under DMCA.

@realyst, I think that with the DMCA, the ones that require the BIOS would be the only legal ones, if that. If "medium-shifting" a ROM is legal, the same goes for the BIOS. Making an emulator that doesn't require a BIOS image requires reverse-engineering of the BIOS, which puts the emulator on shakier grounds. Especially if the BIOS has copy protection code within.


I'd like to mention once again, that the Library of Congress granted exemptions to the DMCA specifically intended to facilitate preservation of obsolete computer games and software. If the hardware platform (like the NES) is not "reasonably available in the commercial marketplace" (that is, being sold in retail) you are free to medium-shift and work around lockout chips or whatever in order to preserve and play the game (which at that point can almost only be done by emulating the original platform). BIOS:es of old hardware could also be included in this as a BIOS is software designed to run on a specific hardware platform. Of course, it goes without saying that you must own the actual game cart/CD/GD/whatever, and in the case of emulators requiring BIOS dumps, also the original machine for which the game was developed.

Then again, IANAL, perhaps someone actually IN the US has a better understanding on what's what with these exemptions.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it, Congress said I should preserve these.

 

[realyst]

I'd like to mention once again, that the Library of Congress granted exemptions to the DMCA specifically intended to facilitate preservation of obsolete computer games and software. If the hardware platform (like the NES) is not "reasonably available in the commercial marketplace" (that is, being sold in retail) you are free to medium-shift and work around lockout chips or whatever in order to preserve and play the game (which at that point can almost only be done by emulating the original platform). BIOS:es of old hardware could also be included in this as a BIOS is software designed to run on a specific hardware platform. Of course, it goes without saying that you must own the actual game cart/CD/GD/whatever, and in the case of emulators requiring BIOS dumps, also the original machine for which the game was developed.





Very interesting, though this part troubles me:

QUOTE

A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.



TV-Games, Virtual Console, backwards compatibility, XBLA, 2600 licensed retro console, Gametap: these may all, in a way, cause many roms/emulators(though not all) to still fall into legal iffiness.

Though I will admit, I never knew the Library of Congress was successful in getting those exemptions in there. Good to know.

 

[cappuchok]

Very interesting, though this part troubles me:

QUOTE

A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

TV-Games, Virtual Console, backwards compatibility, XBLA, 2600 licensed retro console, Gametap: these may all, in a way, cause many roms/emulators(though not all) to still fall into legal iffiness.

It's not iffy if you own the actual cartridges or disks for a broken console/computer/cabinet that isn't sold anymore, I'd imagine. :unsure:

 

[gibberish]

all i can say is im glad that im not troubled by such moral issues.

 

[pfh.chaos]

My understanding is, in America is in copyright cases whether someone will try to sue you is really more important then whether something is legal. The maximum fines for copyright infringement are in the many thousands (i think the max is $150,000 but don't quote me) of dollars and even if you won you case, which is doubtful considering the political environment, the legal fees would probably still bankrupt you.

As for the impression of degrading morality, i believe it has more to do with laws governing progressively more of our lives. Statically, the majority of America has committed a felony (which includes copyright infringement) at some point in their lives. Personally while i am quite content with the morality of my life i am also sure that i joined group of untried felons before i hit puberty. Something which continues to strike me as a sign of a flaw in our legal system.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and this is just my rather pessimistic opinion.