Will The Emulators Be Free?

[Exophase]

This next part relies on an assumption: can we agree that, when someone sells software, there's an implicit "don't make a copy and give it away" request?

The majority of your argument relies on this, and honestly I don't think you can make that assumption any more than you can make the assumption that when someone makes something GPL they want it to be freely distributed; the spirit of GPL is to promote software improvement and development, not to give rights to a pre-existing userbase. In this case these two assumptions contradict each other, so they can't both be true.

The only snag is that someone who forks something under GPL might not actual agree with the GPL in either letter or spirit, but are bound to it out of interests not related to its merit. This is the viral reality of the license.

So Alice has asked Bob not to give away the source, Carol has asked Bob to give away the source. Bob is under no legal obligation to follow one request over the other. He could flip a coin and come up valid either way. So who's request should he follow? All things being equal, Carol has no rights to the code whereas Alice can at least claim some ownership over it. Alice is also the supplier, and by rejecting her request you risk losing that supply, as anecdotally demonstrated. By accepting Carol's request and denying Alice's, Alice is at risk of losing. The risk may not actually materialize (Carol could say "not worth it" and never buy it anyway) or it could manifest the other way in a proliferation this gratis version becoming more popular than the original. Carol, who currently has nothing anyway, can only benefit; even if Bob rejects her request and fulfills Alice's, Carol is no worse off than before.
Therefore, it would seem to me, Alice's request is the more correct of the two.

If you're going to try arguing from the standpoint of utility then I think you have to also consider the benefit of all of the people who can now use the product without paying for it, not to mention giving them the ability to improve it. Alice may be the only one "losing" anything, but others have potentially a lot more to gain. In reality I don't think that Alice actually loses anything in the sense you're demonstrating either, because nothing is being taken for her, she's just not receiving further money for something she already did.

You know, I really think the only reason GPL doesn't forbid commercial pursuit is precisely because of how pointless it is. I'm pretty sure the FSF outright encourages people to obtain source and redistribute things that they otherwise have to pay for. By not opposing commercial activity they help give GPL credibility by pretending it can actually be commercially viable, because it's the goal of the FSF not to validate GPL on its own merits but to invalidate every incompatible license; therefore, GPL must not do anything that would give it any kind of outright competitive disadvantage.

 

[Rathum]

Honestly, the whole "Selling GPL code is immoral!" debate is pointless. If a programmer decides they want to use the GPL, they have to accept the risks. There are more restrictive licenses they can use that will allow them to sell it. They can GPL it after they made enough money to cover the development costs if they really wanted to.

Alternatively, you can use copyrighted images and such in the program that can't be distributed for free. That would prevent just straight up reselling.

 

[WizardStan]

The majority of your argument relies on this, and honestly I don't think you can make that assumption any more than you can make the assumption that when someone makes something GPL they want it to be freely distributed; the spirit of GPL is to promote software improvement and development, not to give rights to a pre-existing userbase. In this case these two assumptions contradict each other, so they can't both be true.

I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. I can want to be paid for my work AND want the people that buy my work to modify it in whatever fashion they desire, including changing my code and improving upon it, and even selling or giving away that new code. The point is that it has been modified, work has been done on it that makes it competitive in ways other than cost. Taking a piece of code, making absolutely no change to it, and distributing it, however, does not seem to be in the spirit of the GPL. To me, the GPL doesn't read "software should be available to everyone", it reads "you own the binary, you should be able to modify it freely". Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so.
Anywho, if you can't accept that single point even as potentially valid, then I have absolutely nothing to work with. We'll have to agree to disagree, if you'll pardon the expression.

 

[Exophase]

I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. I can want to be paid for my work AND want the people that buy my work to modify it in whatever fashion they desire, including changing my code and improving upon it, and even selling or giving away that new code. The point is that it has been modified, work has been done on it that makes it competitive in ways other than cost. Taking a piece of code, making absolutely no change to it, and distributing it, however, does not seem to be in the spirit of the GPL. To me, the GPL doesn't read "software should be available to everyone", it reads "you own the binary, you should be able to modify it freely". Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so.

Honestly, I think you are. I can understand how you feel and why you feel the way you do, of course, I just think you're enough in the minority that you won't get very far in pushing for it.

On the other hand, I do sincerely believe that it's a good thing to respect other people's wishes where it doesn't hurt you, and when it comes to something they've had a personal role in fulfilling especially so.

I think what needs to be asked in this scenario is this: is the original author of the code really okay with someone selling it? If the seller has informed the original author(s) and received consent then I don't see a problem. But in the same way there's an implicit understanding that the seller doesn't want the code to be freely distributed I think it at least can't be assumed that the original author was okay with it being sold, even if both things are allowed by the license. When it comes down to it, if the original author wants the person to stop selling it and the seller refuses then I think this is a worse thing to do than if someone obtains the source and redistributes it. In isolation both may arguably be bad things, but in the presence of the former the later is acting out against it and therefore I consider its negative status revoked.

 

[Rathum]

The majority of your argument relies on this, and honestly I don't think you can make that assumption any more than you can make the assumption that when someone makes something GPL they want it to be freely distributed; the spirit of GPL is to promote software improvement and development, not to give rights to a pre-existing userbase. In this case these two assumptions contradict each other, so they can't both be true.

I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. I can want to be paid for my work AND want the people that buy my work to modify it in whatever fashion they desire, including changing my code and improving upon it, and even selling or giving away that new code. The point is that it has been modified, work has been done on it that makes it competitive in ways other than cost. Taking a piece of code, making absolutely no change to it, and distributing it, however, does not seem to be in the spirit of the GPL. To me, the GPL doesn't read "software should be available to everyone", it reads "you own the binary, you should be able to modify it freely". Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so.
Anywho, if you can't accept that single point even as potentially valid, then I have absolutely nothing to work with. We'll have to agree to disagree, if you'll pardon the expression.

You have to consider that the original author of the GPL is Richard Stallman. Stallman has pretty much stated in the past that all software should be available to everyone. (Many would argue that Stallman is batshit insane, so... yeah...)

The GPL gives the right to redistribute it as you wish as long as the license is transferred over. There are other licenses that explicitly read that you can modify it as you wish, but don't have the redistribution right.

 

[Tom`]

You have to consider that the original author of the GPL is Richard Stallman. Stallman has pretty much stated in the past that all software should be available to everyone. (Many would argue that Stallman is batshit insane, so... yeah...)

Well, not really

What he has stated is that if you have a piece of software, you should have the freedom to do whatever you want with it, except where that would reduce another's freedom. It's an entirely self-consistent point of view - the fact that such a license "promotes software improvement and development" is a secondary effect, albeit a desired one.

For this reason I disagree with Exophase on this point: "...all in all it gives far more protection to people who modify code than people who write code."

It give exactly the same protection to each of those people. You could certainly argue that this is unfair to the people who write it, if they put in more work, but the point of the GPL is to ensure the same freedoms for everyone. For this reason I don't think you can characterize RMS as "insane" (or at least, not purely on his obsession with freedom - I don't actually know him personally, after all). That the GPL may not be purely compatible with a capitalistic point of view is beside the point when considering the intent of the license.

 

[Dunny]

no, it's a dick move. no one (generally speaking) has been paid in the past for emulators, why now? other software is one thing, but emulators and games??? big dick move...

I dunno, where I'm from (the Speccy scene) there's a bit of both. My own emulator, ZXSpin is free - you don't get source (and never will) but you can download it for free and do what you want with it. Jonathon Needle sells his emulator, Spectaculator. It's very good, and pretty accurate. He has a lot of registered users who have been more than happy to part with however much he charges for it. Note that nobody charges for the games to run on it, unless they're ebay scammers or Craig Rothwell. I don't know how many users ZXSpin has, but I'd venture to say that it's one of the top three or four.

Spectaculator has benefits to registration - the author is on hand via email to help with any problems you may have. You as a registered user also have a say in what features are added next. This is what you pay for. ZXSpin however has no implied support contract, and I don't provide help if I don't feel like it on any particular day. I implement what I like in the way of features and I'm generally quite nasty to people who demand things of me - which is my right, as they've not paid for it.

Both emulators have a very high degree of accuracy which is constantly improving as new discoveries are made. Both models work well - paid and unpaid. But the users of the paid-for emulator get a better experience outside of the emulation - that's what they've paid for.

D.

 

[aesir911]

no, it's a dick move. no one (generally speaking) has been paid in the past for emulators, why now? other software is one thing, but emulators and games??? big dick move...

I dunno, where I'm from (the Speccy scene) there's a bit of both. My own emulator, ZXSpin is free - you don't get source (and never will) but you can download it for free and do what you want with it. Jonathon Needle sells his emulator, Spectaculator. It's very good, and pretty accurate. He has a lot of registered users who have been more than happy to part with however much he charges for it. Note that nobody charges for the games to run on it, unless they're ebay scammers or Craig Rothwell. I don't know how many users ZXSpin has, but I'd venture to say that it's one of the top three or four.

Spectaculator has benefits to registration - the author is on hand via email to help with any problems you may have. You as a registered user also have a say in what features are added next. This is what you pay for. ZXSpin however has no implied support contract, and I don't provide help if I don't feel like it on any particular day. I implement what I like in the way of features and I'm generally quite nasty to people who demand things of me - which is my right, as they've not paid for it.

Both emulators have a very high degree of accuracy which is constantly improving as new discoveries are made. Both models work well - paid and unpaid. But the users of the paid-for emulator get a better experience outside of the emulation - that's what they've paid for.

D.

no, not ROMs, i'm talking about games like quake and other independent games. i'm pretty sure that's not what we'll be paying for though. pickle (for instance) created many emulators and made corrections based on users comments and concerns. i stick by my statement, WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR EMULATORS NOW?? we never have in the past...

 

[WizardStan]

no, not ROMs, i'm talking about games like quake and other independent games. i'm pretty sure that's not what we'll be paying for though. pickle (for instance) created many emulators and made corrections based on users comments and concerns. i stick by my statement, WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR EMULATORS NOW?? we never have in the past...

1) Quake is not an emulator. Why are you bringing it up?
2) As Dunny pointed out, there is a ZX Spectrum emulator that you need to pay for, and people do. VGBA is a GBA emulator with a $35 fee which people do pay. ZodTTD is charging for the N64 emulator on iPhone through Cydia. There was that PSX emulator that went commercial, until Sony lawyered them into the ground.
There are a lot of emulators that people have paid for in the past. Why should there suddenly be a blanket "thou shalt not charge for emulators" now?

 

[aesir911]

no, not ROMs, i'm talking about games like quake and other independent games. i'm pretty sure that's not what we'll be paying for though. pickle (for instance) created many emulators and made corrections based on users comments and concerns. i stick by my statement, WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR EMULATORS NOW?? we never have in the past...

1) Quake is not an emulator. Why are you bringing it up?
2) As Dunny pointed out, there is a ZX Spectrum emulator that you need to pay for, and people do. VGBA is a GBA emulator with a $35 fee which people do pay. ZodTTD is charging for the N64 emulator on iPhone through Cydia. There was that PSX emulator that went commercial, until Sony lawyered them into the ground.
There are a lot of emulators that people have paid for in the past. Why should there suddenly be a blanket "thou shalt not charge for emulators" now?

1) i know it's not a emulator, it's a game... (like i said above) (i was using it as an example because the last guy didnt understand me. he thought i was talking about ROMs, instead of games that are nonreliant on emulators)
2) for one... it's illegal. for another, they could get sued if someone decides to share the info with the original company. and because the fact that there are 2-3 paid emulators (compared to the hundreds of others) is enough to say it shouldn't be done, if you really don't care about infringing copyright laws.

 

[WizardStan]

1) i know it's not a emulator, it's a game... (like i said above) (i was using it as an example because the last guy didnt understand me. he thought i was talking about ROMs, instead of games that are nonreliant on emulators)

Who did? Dunny? No he didn't, he only said that no one charges for games, cause duh, that would be copyright infringement. Except for ebay scammers and Craig for some reason. I'm hoping that last part was a joke.

2) for one... it's illegal. for another, they could get sued if someone decides to share the info with the original company. and because the fact that there are 2-3 paid emulators (compared to the hundreds of others) is enough to say it shouldn't be done, if you really don't care about infringing copyright laws.

This, however, is not copyright infringement. I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that some emulators exist that people do willingly and gladly charge for is proof that your "we never have in the past" statement is false. If you don't want to pay for an emulator, that's fine, it doesn't mean that pay for emulators don't exist, and that they absolutely cannot exist on the Pandora. In fact, I think I might write an emulator, put it on the appstore, and charge whatever the maximum amount we're allowed to just to spite you.

 

[Rathum]

no, not ROMs, i'm talking about games like quake and other independent games. i'm pretty sure that's not what we'll be paying for though. pickle (for instance) created many emulators and made corrections based on users comments and concerns. i stick by my statement, WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR EMULATORS NOW?? we never have in the past...

1) Quake is not an emulator. Why are you bringing it up?
2) As Dunny pointed out, there is a ZX Spectrum emulator that you need to pay for, and people do. VGBA is a GBA emulator with a $35 fee which people do pay. ZodTTD is charging for the N64 emulator on iPhone through Cydia. There was that PSX emulator that went commercial, until Sony lawyered them into the ground.
There are a lot of emulators that people have paid for in the past. Why should there suddenly be a blanket "thou shalt not charge for emulators" now?

1) i know it's not a emulator, it's a game... (like i said above) (i was using it as an example because the last guy didnt understand me. he thought i was talking about ROMs, instead of games that are nonreliant on emulators)
2) for one... it's illegal. for another, they could get sued if someone decides to share the info with the original company. and because the fact that there are 2-3 paid emulators (compared to the hundreds of others) is enough to say it shouldn't be done, if you really don't care about infringing copyright laws.

Selling emulators is perfectly legal. That was established in Sony v. Connectix where they ruled that copying the BIOS to reverse engineer was Fair Use and selling an emulator does not harm a company. Connectix eventually sold their emulator to Sony. This also had the effect of forcing Sony to attempt to sue Bleem! over the screenshots they used instead of the actual legality of the emulator. Bleem! managed to win that case, but the massive lawyer fees caused them to have to shut down.

You can still get sued for selling an emulator, buy you have a pretty good chance of winning and could probably get the EFF or ACLU to foot the bill for your lawyer fees.

 

[Dunny]

2) for one... it's illegal. for another, they could get sued if someone decides to share the info with the original company. and because the fact that there are 2-3 paid emulators (compared to the hundreds of others) is enough to say it shouldn't be done, if you really don't care about infringing copyright laws.

Woah there, tiger! Nobody is infringing anybody by writing an emulator.

You are the one doing the infringement here, by using it to play games. It matters not that you might own original copies, either btw. I'm fairly certain the current copyright holders of the machine my emulator imitates are ok with it, as I've been talking to them about distribution (and in some cases modification) of the system ROMs.

Emulators are legal, and have always been legal so long as you don't include copyrighted code or other data that you don't hold the copyright on.

D.

 

[Exophase]

Sadly, Bleem and VGS were pre-DMCA. So who knows if you'd get away with it now. But no one has been brought to court since then. I think companies are less willing to go after individuals selling things online than those trying to sell them in stores.

 

[Rathum]

2) for one... it's illegal. for another, they could get sued if someone decides to share the info with the original company. and because the fact that there are 2-3 paid emulators (compared to the hundreds of others) is enough to say it shouldn't be done, if you really don't care about infringing copyright laws.

Woah there, tiger! Nobody is infringing anybody by writing an emulator.

You are the one doing the infringement here, by using it to play games. It matters not that you might own original copies, either btw. I'm fairly certain the current copyright holders of the machine my emulator imitates are ok with it, as I've been talking to them about distribution (and in some cases modification) of the system ROMs.

Emulators are legal, and have always been legal so long as you don't include copyrighted code or other data that you don't hold the copyright on.

D.

ROMs should be legal as long as there are no copy protection methods in place and you actually own a copy of it. It's the same reason ripping tracks from a CD is actually legal.

 

[gruso]

The legality of game ROMs / ripped audio / other digital content is different in each country. If we get into that conversation we'll end up with another 40 page circular thread.

 

[Monk]

I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. I can want to be paid for my work AND want the people that buy my work to modify it in whatever fashion they desire, including changing my code and improving upon it, and even selling or giving away that new code. The point is that it has been modified, work has been done on it that makes it competitive in ways other than cost. Taking a piece of code, making absolutely no change to it, and distributing it, however, does not seem to be in the spirit of the GPL. To me, the GPL doesn't read "software should be available to everyone", it reads "you own the binary, you should be able to modify it freely". Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so.

Honestly, I think you are.

I don't think so. I see some of WizardStan's thoughts very easily. I'm not saying I've read the GPL closely enough to interpret it, but I have to wonder what Alice's motivation is in charging for her work if she's happy for people to give it away for free (or charge others for it without giving her any kickback). It seems nonsensical to argue that Alice doesn't want others to buy the fruits of her labour rather than to take it for free. On the other hand, if someone can improve on it then not only does the software get imrpoved (a good thing) but whoever improves it deserves the opportunity to charge for THEIR effort - if they so desire. Being a good little capitalist, Alice is equating workd done with the action of charging for the work. No work done = no "rights" (morally rather than by license). Granting the ability to improve on the software is to me worlds away from granting the ability to deprice Alive of *potential* earnings.

That Alice's work is already done before anyone pays her for it seems a bit abstract - how many people here are paid to work BEFORE they do their daily, weekly, or monthly job? But we all want paying for it afterwards, don't we?

The legality of game ROMs / ripped audio / other digital content is different in each country. If we get into that conversation we'll end up with another 40 page circular thread.

There's a topic that DOESN'T try to eat it's own tail? :blink:

 

[aesir911]

ROMs should be legal as long as there are no copy protection methods in place and you actually own a copy of it. It's the same reason ripping tracks from a CD is actually legal.

i thought it was legal to download an electronic version of a game you own in case something goes wrong with your original copy. perhaps i was led astray?

 

[typs lik dis]

aesir: In the US, I reckon, you have to make the backup yourself and you can't keep it after you sell the original media. It's also illegal under the DMCA to circumvent DRM, like decrypting CSS when ripping a DVD. You have no legal right to do anything anywhere ever.

I think that you shouldn't release under the GPL if you want to make money off your software alone. Why wouldn't you just use a different license to give users the right to see the source code and modify it, but not to share it with anyone who hadn't bought it from you? And even to sell patches to other users? It's preposterous to call people "dicks" for exercising their rights under whatever license an author chose.

 

[Prometheus]

i thought it was legal to download an electronic version of a game you own in case something goes wrong with your original copy. perhaps i was led astray?

The legalities vary around the world. What you describe there is more an ethical issue than it is a legal one.