Leej07

Sorry, this Voultar fellow is being a complete drama queen.
The input lag is nowhere near "horrid."

These two missed deals are legendary, but Atari had ANOTHER missed opportunity that occurred several years before the aborted Nintendo deal.

As is fairly common knowledge, years before he founded Apple, a young Steve Jobs worked for Atari, and it was he and Steve Wozniak that helped design their first big hit, Breakout.
Fast forward a few years and Apple is formed, Jobs goes to his old friend, the founder of Atari, Nolan Bushnell, and offered him a stake in the new company.
Bushnell declined the offer.
He still jokes to this day that it was the biggest mistake he ever made.

@darkswabber Dude, getting stuff free is the best, right?
I got my Dreamcast, NES, and Intellivision consoles all for the low, low price of free.

@NinNin Actually, yes they have, apparently, multiple times. Hell, both the WiiU and Switch apparently have EULA's that specifically prohibit copying one's own games, which is of questionable legality regarding the American Fair Use exception.

This here must be Nintendo's worst Nightmare: https://archive.org/details/consolelivingroom&tab=about

Sadly, I notice there are no Nintendo consoles to be seen there, but notice Sega was obviously kind enough to not pitch a fit about it.

Hell, certain groups, such as the Internet Archive, have managed to get themselves exempted and allowed to store, preserve, and even share (in an extremely limited way, IE, they can't offer the roms for download, but they can let them run on an emulator than anyone with a computer can access) all on the premise of historical preservation.
So hey, if someone can make a compelling, legal case for themself being a conservator, theoretically anyone could get themselves exempted.
(It's a lot more technical and involved than this, of course, and the hoops you have to jump through to get around it are by no means something that can be done easily.)

The basic fact is this: The US Supreme Court has never once made a ruling stating you cannot back up your own copy of a game. Nintendo doesn't like this, but Nintendo does not run the US Supreme Court, last time I checked.

For one thing, I think the copyright expiration period of 120 years should be drastically shortened for video games.
If a company goes defunct, there's an AWFUL LOT of their digital media that would be completely lost forever by the time 120 years has passed.

I think, in this burgeoning era of Digital Everything, that it's about time Copyright law gets an overhaul. In many ways, Copyright law is still very much bound to a paper and ink era of books. Some of it is just really awkward with regards to stuff like video games.

That does fit better.
The Supreme Court ruled that Emulation is legal, knowing full well a big chunk of emulating involves something that is illegal to obtain. I mean, I suppose someone could argue the court just never took that into consideration, but all the lawyers and judges involved had to have realized this particular implication. Then of course the matter is clouded further by the whole Fair Use exception and it's just a whole heap of yes it's illegal, but we aren't going to cross that bridge yet.

@roadrunner343 Really, that's what makes this matter rather gray, as opposed to black and white. By ruling emulators are completely legal, the courts have to know that emulators REQUIRE roms to work. It's little more than suddenly legalizing one side of a black market.
Like Prohibition: You better not be buying any booze! But drink whatever you want.

I'm not saying it's illegal for Nintendo to download a rom of a game they own the copyright of, but, if they paid for said rom, that is a bit shady, as they are giving profit to someone they claim is infringing their copyright.

I know that, but Syrek up there claims Nintendo called it illegal.

Nintendo can say it's illegal to copy your own game all it wants. That does not circumvent the very real Fair Use exemption that exists in America.

Again I'll point out there are some games that cannot be obtained in any legal way EXCEPT by downloading a rom. There are also certain other games that are not translated to English, Mother 3 being a prime example. Despite the huge popularity of EarthBound in America, Nintendo consistantly REFUSES to release Mother 3 over here, despite the fact that an American release of Mother 3 would practically print money like the DS.
I see nothing especially evil about somebody downloading a rom and fan-made English patch of Mother 3.
Nintendo clearly could care less that Americans want to play it.
That said, if Nintendo ever did finally get off their a**es and release Mother 3 in the US, then I'll be the first to say you shouldn't keep downloading that rom.

I think the main guideline should be this: If you can get the game legally, either via Virtual Console, Ebay, importing, the local game shop, whatever, then fine, don't download a rom of it.
If the game is completely impossible to acquire by any legitimate means, or means that are not god-awful expensive, get a rom. As has been mentioned, while it is not exactly legal, the law, and more than a few game companies (not including Nintendo), couldn't care less anymore. They have way more important stuff to deal with besides hunting a few people downloading roms of their old games. If you live in China, pirate as much as you can, mate. I know how restrictive video game laws they have there.

What really gets me are emulators are completely, 100% legal, yet getting roms is not.
It's the EXACT SAME as Prohibition in the 1920s. Drinking alcohol was completely, 100% legal. Making and selling it was not.

Did that stop anybody? NO.

That said, piracy has been around since, well, forever. In many former Soviet Republics, piracy was the ONLY way to get games. Are going to villefy them?

Also, I guess it's more accurate to say that, in the US, if I buy a game, I own that particular copy of that game, whether it's a disk, cartridge, digital download, whatever, that one, singular, particular copy of the game is mine, full stop. I suppose the real debate is whether or not I own the DATA on that media. I think, legally speaking, a convincing argument can be made that yes, I do own that one particular copy of game code by virtue of owning that disk, cart, whatever.
Nintendo obviously disagrees, and it may be that's how Japanese copyright law works, I don't know.
In the US, owning a CD means I own that particular copy of the song encoded on it, so I'm not sure why video games would be legally any different. This needs to be clearly defined at some point, or a whole host of problems will eventually crop up.

Well, see, that's where it gets weird, because there are plenty of games out there that a person can, explicitly, copy as much as they want. GOG sells games DRM free, and you can do whatever you please with them.
Now, with other companies, Nintendo most specifically, yeah, it does get much shadier. They aren't helping their own cause by downloading roms and then selling those to everyone via the VC, as they have been known to do in the past. I mean, come on, Nintendo... That's not helping their argument.

As I understand it, though, it is blatantly illegal in the UK and Australia, but there are no laws on the books in America outright banning a person from copying something for their private, personal use. This is why people can rip their music CDs as much as they want here.

It does fall under fair use, though. The DMCA has been changed recently to allow preservationists like the Internet Archive to preserve games. Granted, yes, this is an extremely limited and technical exception, but it is an example of Fair Use.
The fact is, this IS a gray area. If video games are classified legally no different than music or movies, then Fair Use should apply. Perhaps the Supreme Court should finally weigh in on the matter and settle it once and for all.

@Kalmaro I should have clarified. You are indeed correct apparently that downloading roms of games you already own is not completely legal, though a lawyer asked about it stated it COULD conceivably be a valid legal defense if it ever became a legal case. As of now, no legal precedent has been set, so downloading roms of games you already own may not be illegal.
But, and this is a big BUT, I am likewise correct that DUMPING a rom of a game you already own is 100% completely legal in the United States, falling under the Fair Use exception.
This here is some good info on the matter:
https://www.howtogeek.com/262758/is-downloading-retro-video-game-roms-ever-legal/

Not all roms are evil. Downloading roms of games you already own is completely legal in America, so long as you aren't distributing them to other people.

@chardir Dang, because that is completely legal in America.

It basically boils down this: is it theft? Yes. But when original copies of a particular game are selling for $100 bucks or more, and it hasn't been re-released on something like the Virtual Console, is it any wonder people would resort to downloading a rom rather than spend $500 bucks for that highly acclaimed RPG from 30 years ago?

That really is the major issue, here. Not everyone can afford to import both a PAL console and a PAL tv and PAL games.

Nintendo is really the only major company that makes a big deal of roms and emulators.
More than a few of the other big developers don't appear to care one iota if a game they made 30 years ago is downloaded as a rom.
And I mean, it makes sense they wouldn't care. What is the bigger problem, someone pirating this year's hot new game, or somebody downloading a rom of a game made decades ago?

@Switch81tch He'll say it's still illegal, but under US copyright law, if the company is defunct, and copyright is expired, you can do whatever you damn well please, because it's classified as abandonware.

Then again, I see video games as art, and art should be saved for posterity.

Like I said, you're hopeless. Thank goodness we DO have groups like the Internet Archive and others, else this stuff would be lost forever. I don't really understand why somebody WOULDN'T want them all preserved in some form for the future, but you may be the first.

Here's another thing.
By God, if I were a game developer, I'd actually be rather flattered if some obscure game I made 30 years ago still had enough fans that they were resorting to roms in order to play it.
And I have indeed seen more than a few developers that said they are flattered.

Also, regardless whether or not preservation is used too flippantly, @Kalmaro apparently seems to think legitimate video game preservation is the 8th Deadly Sin and a sign of the Apocalypse. I'd hate to see how he reacts to the Internet Archive... Probably call the Copyright Cops on them.

Let's be perfectly clear here, I've rarely ever downloaded any roms myself because I only have a subpar PC at best, and don't particularly enjoy playing console games with a keyboard. The few I have downloaded were for curiousity, more than anything.

@electrolite77 You got that right.
I mean, is there anything extreme at all about what I'm saying? It's not like I'm advocating for the wholesale theft of Nintendo's entire catalogue.
I also can't understand how wanting to play an obscure game that Nintendo will obviously NEVER release in America somehow translates to an overinflated sense of entitlement.
Nor how desiring to preserve the history of video games is again a sense of entitlement. Why is it wrong to preserve video games, but not classic movies? IT MAKES NO DAMN SENSE.

Also, I'll also mention again that downloading roms of games from defunct publishers, with expired copyrights, is not illegal. By that point they are classified abandonware.

Right there, black and white. YOU CAN MAKE A BACK UP OF A GAME YOU OWN. END OF STORY.
Nintendo cannot legally prevent this.

Good god, ugh... Yeah, you're a moron. If you can't comprehend the concept and importance of video game preservation, then you are hopeless.
I mean, seriously, it is NO DIFFERENT than preserving classic films, famous books, or popular music. I suppose preserving "Citizen Kane" for posterity is just "entitlement talking," and is a waste of time.
Again, you are wrong. From the Entertainment Software Association:
: Is it legal to make or download backup copies of games as long as you own a legitimate copy? And if so, can you sell your backup copy or sell your original and keep your backup?
A1: U.S. copyright law permits the creation of a backup copy of computer programs for archival purposes, but the law only allows a consumer to make an archival copy of the actual copy that he or she legally possesses, not to make a copy of a file that someone else legally possesses (by downloading it from a website or via a peer-to-peer client, for example), nor to post an archival copy of his or her original copy in a location where it can be widely distributed.

I also think you're completely misunderstanding ownership laws in the US. Regardless of what Nintendo says, according to US laws, when you buy something, you own it, completely. This in turn gives you the right to make as many back ups as you want. No exceptions.

The fact is, I completely agree that downloading a rom of a game that is readily available is unethical.
But if a game is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to acquire except via a rom absolutely falls into a grey area.
And to just say, "Wah, you don't have the RIGHT to play that game, because it was never released in America. Sux to be you."
No. Just no. Sure, playing games is a luxury, not a right, but games are made to be played. They deserve to be preserved and made available for EVERYONE to enjoy.

@Kalmaro You are straight up a prick. Sorry to be rude, but you are. You won't listen to reason.
You clearly could care less about game preservation. Who cares if Nintendo will absolutely NEVER release the Satellaview games again, we're just gonna let them fade away and be forgotten.
Well poo on you, buster.
It's not about whether or not anyone has the right to play those games. It's all about saving those games for posterity.

At this point, I'm just trying to get them to concede that there is nothing inherently wrong with downloading the rom of a game you cannot otherwise obtain in any legal manner.

I'm not sure that's a good analogy, since growing tomatoes is not illegal.

Again I say, if there is literally no legal way whatsoever to obtain a game, then get the rom. Who cares?
Is it theft? Well yes.
However, like I said before, there are hundreds, or even thousands, of games out there that cannot be purchased or played in any legal way. Should we let those games be lost forever, just because it is not legal?

Basically, I consider it this way. If a game is accessible, be it VC, import, whatev... Heck, if you wanna be a real stickler, if a game CAN be acquired legally somehow, no matter how ridiculous, then sure, probably best to avoid roms.

HOWEVER, if there is literally NO WAY WHATSOEVER to acquire a game legally, such BS Zelda and other Satellaview games, then I really see no issue with resorting to a ROM. Nintendo is obviously NEVER gonna re-release those games on VC. So why should they have to be entirely inaccessible?

I mean, yeah, it's technically against the rules, but there's so many various reasons...

Let's have an example.
In the 1990's, Nintendo released an add-on for the Super Famicom in Japan called the Satellaview. It was awesome. It got several awesome games, many of which could only be played ONCE, and then never again.
The Satellaview was NEVER released in America. Furthermore, there is basically ZERO chance any of the Satellaview games will EVER be released on the Virtual Console.
Tell me, then, WHO CARES IF SOMEBODY IN AMERICA DOWNLOADS A ROM OF A SATELLAVIEW GAME?

Okay, point number 1: Roms are not inherently evil. There are quite a few companies, such as Sega and Atari, that clearly could care less, and, in many cases, appear to give their tacit blessing of the practice.
Point number 2: It is indeed completely, 100% legal to download roms of games you already own. Seriously, this one is a complete non-issue legally. You own the game, you can dump as many roms of it as you like.
Point number 3: Sure, using roms may technically be considered stealing, but that is not always the case. You can legally download roms of games from defunct developers. If a copyright has expired, there is really no legal restriction. Of course, Nintendo is neither defunct, nor have their copyrights expired.