SNES Mini is just an updated NES Mini?

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Oh look, the ROM's they used are available for free online.

 

Screw Nintendo.

 

It's more about the fact that the ROM's being used are ones created for emulation, by a fan, who did it to help preserve Nintendo's work. They later sued saying he had no legal right to create them, they lost, but are now using the exact same ROM's to make millions.

 

Let me be clear, Nintendo had no copies of the original games, so they used the same ROM's that they had previously tried to destroy. They are in essence, by their own arguments, violating their own intellectual property.

Sorry buddy but that is a contradiction of terms, it is literally impossible for them to violate their own copyright on their own intellectual property.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

While what you say is entirely true, Nintendo can do what ever the hell they choose with their own property you gotta concede its a shitty move to go and DMCA every trace of their games from the internet and then a few months later go and release exact copies of the ROMs that they had removed as their own property.

 

Are they in breach of any copyright laws? No. Is it a shitty thing to do? Yes.

Also, you have no evidence that they used fan dumped ROMs.  All the carts are identical and the tools for dumping carts are pretty standard.  So Nintendo can dump any cart on it's own and said dump would have the same checksum of any other ROM dumped the same way without changes.

[GoodBytes]

All we know is that Nintendo used the same open source tool used to rip ROMs out of cartridges as those who do to illegally distributed. If you are assuming that they downloaded the ROM, that is up to you. You sure bet they didn't.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

Also, you have no evidence that they used fan dumped ROMs.  All the carts are identical and the tools for dumping carts are pretty standard.  So Nintendo can dump any cart on it's own and said dump would have the same checksum of any other ROM dumped the same way without changes.

There is concrete evidence. the ROM released contained a header marker that is only applied by a user made ROM dumper. This marker is an entirely superfluous piece of ASM which is left by the dumper purely as an identification method.

 

It means one of two things, either Nintendo used the fan made dumper to dump a ROM or they simply took an already dumped ROM from a website and released it as their own. In either case they would have had to have used something which just months prior they were actively trying to have removed from the internet.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

All we know is that Nintendo used the same open source tool used to rip ROMs out of cartridges as those who do to illegally distributed. If you are assuming that they downloaded the ROM, that is up to you. You sure bet they didn't.

A piece of software which IIRC they included in the wave of DMCA strikes they issued and tried to have removed from the internet.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

There is concrete evidence. the ROM released contained a header marker that is only applied by a user made ROM dumper. This marker is an entirely superfluous piece of ASM which is left by the dumper purely as an identification method.

So... They used the same dumping tools.

...Because it would be stupid for them to invest technical effort in developing their own ROM dumping tools.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

So... They used the same dumping tools.

...Because it would be stupid for them to invest technical effort in developing their own ROM dumping tools.

 

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

A piece of software which IIRC they included in the wave of DMCA strikes they issued and tried to have removed from the internet.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Yes, I saw this.  Your point?  Nintendo itself could still freely use that software so long as they didn't violate the software's licensing agreement.

So anyway, I'm getting ready to work and I'll be stopping at GameStop enroute to see if I can pick up an SNES Mini.  It'll likely be sold out but it's worth a shot, no?

[Master Disaster]

26 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Yes, I saw this.  Your point?  Nintendo itself could still freely use that software so long as they didn't violate the software's licensing agreement.

So anyway, I'm getting ready to work and I'll be stopping at GameStop enroute to see if I can pick up an SNES Mini.  It'll likely be sold out but it's worth a shot, no?

So you're saying its morally OK to issue a DMCA against a piece of software to try and have it removed from the internet then a few months later use said piece of software to create ROMS that they later sold to the general public?

 

Remember I'm not interested in the law here, Nintendo did not break any laws by doing what they did but to try and shut down a piece of software then just months later use that exact software in order to make money? Thats pretty reprehensible.

 

And while we are on the subject, is it not against an Open Source License to use open source software in order to create something which you intend to sell? (Genuine question BTW, I'm actually not sure of the answer)

[GoodBytes]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

So you're saying its morally OK to issue a DMCA against a piece of software to try and have it removed from the internet then a few months later use said piece of software to create ROMS that they later sold to the general public?

It is their right. The developers knew PERFECTLY what they were getting into. They knew the risk, they knew that Nintendo might take their open source project, shut it down, and sale it for millions, without them having a penny, and have nothing to fight in court. It is their responsibility to manage to get written permission for the OK, BEFORE starting.

Some start or even near finish and show to the company that they are copyrighting for the OK to distribute it (and of course, the company will get a nice share.. usually gets the bigger piece even though the outside dev did all the work). A risk that one takes where it can be rejected. Usually they do it to get a better "Wow" factor, or present trust on the quality of your work. Sonic Mania is an example of this. In this case, SEGA offered a more interesting deal, where they give funds, publication of the game, and studio with a team. And this kind of thing happens even between big companies. It is called risk. You can't go up if you don't do them.

 

Maybe the team of people on the ROM extractor would have been rejected... but maybe if they showed it at Nintendo during the NES Classic development stage, Nintendo might have went "Well.. all the work is done for us... here is a better offer: All expense paid (usually is), to come to our nearest office and work with the "Classic" series of system team, full time job, and you'll be the lead architect ice of your tool, and you'll have a team under you to give you all the resources you need to finish your tool". The dev(s) could have ended up with nice 6 digit salaries to start. Not bad. Or end up with nothing... and not taking the risk, you end up with nothing, which technically, in any case, that would be the situation.

 

[AshleyAshes]

50 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And while we are on the subject, is it not against an Open Source License to use open source software in order to create something which you intend to sell? (Genuine question BTW, I'm actually not sure of the answer)

While most open source software licenses can't be included in a commercial product, the software itself can be used in commercial operations.  In short, I can't sell copies of debien.  I can use debien in my business on our computers to do stuff then generates revenue.

[vanished]

Is this really surprising?  At this point they're just emulating the games anyway - this is well known - and the hardware power requires for the NES and SNES are a) not that different and b) not that much, so it seems logical to design something that can handle both from the start and not have to redo all the R&D.

[vanished]

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

While most open source software licenses can't be included in a commercial product, the software itself can be used in commercial operations.  In short, I can't sell copies of debien.  I can use debien in my business on our computers to do stuff then generates revenue.

My understanding is that you can also, as a company, take it and make custom improvements for your own use, but, you'd have to also release those back to the world.  You can't just lock it down and claim it as your own.

[AshleyAshes]

21 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

My understanding is that you can also, as a company, take it and make custom improvements for your own use, but, you'd have to also release those back to the world.  You can't just lock it down and claim it as your own.

Yup thought this can be license specific and there's actually quite a few open source licensing types so it really varies.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Yup thought this can be license specific and there's actually quite a few open source licensing types so it really varies.

True.  The UNIX/BSD license that was on whatever Apple stole to turn into Mac OS was obviously one of these different types that does allow specifically what I said above was forbidden.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

True.  The UNIX/BSD license that was on whatever Apple stole to turn into Mac OS was obviously one of these different types that does allow specifically what I said above was forbidden.

Actually...

Spoiler

Apple does release the source code of parts of MacOS, those parts being only the bits that have anything to do with open software they took, Darwin, the core of MacOS is one of those. Parts of the kernel are also available but some subroutines, those they developed themselves and don't want to share,  aren't.

 

[Trik'Stari]

11 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Do you even comprehend that a copyright holder can make as many copies of their own copyrighted material as they please without 'violating their own intellectual property'?

 

Your entire complaint here makes no sense.

Except that what they're using is a copy made by someone else. Literally someone else did the work to preserve these games, someone they attempted to shutdown and lost. What they're using is NOT something they created. It's something someone else created to preserve what they originally created. Had that person never did what they did, Nintendo would not have this product AT ALL.

 

They didn't want those copies made, ever. And now they're profiting off of it. Can you not see the intellectual conflict of interest? It's akin to damning prostitution as an industry and then running a brothel.

 

Nintendo is just a terrible company all around.

[AshleyAshes]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Except that what they're using is a copy made by someone else. Literally someone else did the work to preserve these games, someone they attempted to shutdown and lost. What they're using is NOT something they created. It's something someone else created to preserve what they originally created. Had that person never did what they did, Nintendo would not have this product AT ALL.

It's a copy of the binary data on a ROM.  Nothing was created.

Secondly, yes.  Nintendo would very much have a product.  No one has ever confirmed that Nintendo simply 'downloaded' any ROMs from the internet.  At most it could be confirmed that the same dumping tools were used.  When you dump ROM, you get data that is identical to what's on the cart, that's the very goal of dumping a ROM, to make a 1:1 copy.  The tools and documentation for doing such are extremely well known.  I understand that for some reason, you and others think that Nintendo would be incapable of locating carts of fairly common and dump them themselves, as if somehow a Super Mario World cart became as rare as a unicorn once the SNES Classic Mini was announced.

 

Then there's the case of the one that Nintendo certainly HAS dumped;  Star Fox 2.  It's been well confirmed that that ROM does NOT match any of the patched prototypes that fans have produced.  While the prototypes seem to be very close, the version of Star Fox 2 that Nintendo released with the SNES Classic Mini is unique.  Preservation efforts have already dumped that ROM off the SNES Classic Mini since there's no other known source for it.  So CLEARLY Nintendo has demonstrated an ability to dump it's own ROMs.  (And seriously, who thinks that Nintendo DOESN'T have an archive of carts and discs available to them?  Keeping developer source code alive, that's a bigger challenge, but directing and archiving some carts when they owned the manufacturing process anyway is pretty easy.)

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

While most open source software licenses can't be included in a commercial product, the software itself can be used in commercial operations.  In short, I can't sell copies of debien.  I can use debien in my business on our computers to do stuff then generates revenue.

This is a common misunderstanding. There is NOTHING preventing anyone from selling Debian if they want. It is not against the GPL at all. In fact, Stallman even has an article on his website about this.

 

Synergy, the software Linus triers to sell his viewers, is an example of this. The source code is licensed under GPL but they are selling it anyway. You can download it for free here if you want (not sure if it includes all components though).

 

I am not aware of any other widely used open source license prohibiting sales of the software either.

Having to release the source code does however make it more difficult to make someone pay for it.

 

 

39 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

It's a copy of the binary data on a ROM.  Nothing was created.

Well... ROM files are not just a bit for bit copy of the data on the cartridge. While the game data itself will be (assuming a proper dumb was made) bit perfect, the header information can be different (and is created).

There is also a lot of metadata which will be unique to the specific dump, such as time-stamps.

 

The developer of the INES header himself have said:

Quote

There are minute differences between ROM dumps.

Depending on the cartridge version and how it has been dumped. If you see that your .NES file DOES NOT match any of the ones found online, it is likely to be their own ROM dump. I have cut the ROM content out of the Wii file you sent me and it indeed matches the .NES file found online.

I haven't looked into the INES format enough to say what these minute differences would be, but if the creator says it then I will believe him.

[TetraSky]

Not really surprised here. The hardware was overpowered for NES to begin with, it wouldn't be strange if they had a N64 mini with the same hardware as well.

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

It's a copy of the binary data on a ROM.  Nothing was created.

Secondly, yes.  Nintendo would very much have a product.  No one has ever confirmed that Nintendo simply 'downloaded' any ROMs from the internet.  At most it could be confirmed that the same dumping tools were used.  When you dump ROM, you get data that is identical to what's on the cart, that's the very goal of dumping a ROM, to make a 1:1 copy.  The tools and documentation for doing such are extremely well known.  I understand that for some reason, you and others think that Nintendo would be incapable of locating carts of fairly common and dump them themselves, as if somehow a Super Mario World cart became as rare as a unicorn once the SNES Classic Mini was announced.

 

Then there's the case of the one that Nintendo certainly HAS dumped;  Star Fox 2.  It's been well confirmed that that ROM does NOT match any of the patched prototypes that fans have produced.  While the prototypes seem to be very close, the version of Star Fox 2 that Nintendo released with the SNES Classic Mini is unique.  Preservation efforts have already dumped that ROM off the SNES Classic Mini since there's no other known source for it.  So CLEARLY Nintendo has demonstrated an ability to dump it's own ROMs.  (And seriously, who thinks that Nintendo DOESN'T have an archive of carts and discs available to them?  Keeping developer source code alive, that's a bigger challenge, but directing and archiving some carts when they owned the manufacturing process anyway is pretty easy.)

It's simply the fact that they throw absolute tantrums over anyone doing the same exact thing and giving it away for free, that pisses me off. Please note, I am now veering into the realm of "right and wrong", or "nice and asinine", not legality.

 

Sure, they have every legal right to do what they're doing, but morally I don't feel they deserve a single fucking dime that they are currently making, as a consumer. In my opinion these products are old enough that they should qualify as public domain. Patents and copyrights last FAR too long, and enable companies to behave egregiously, which in my opinion Nintendo is doing. We know pretty much for a fact that they produce these things, as well as other products, on a smaller scale, on purpose to generate artificial scarcity and drive the price up. Nevermind their completely egregious abuse of the content ID system on youtube and elsewhere. So much that they threaten game reviewers who attempt to give any awards to fan made games.

 

Sure they're in the legal right to do these things, but it doesn't change the fact that it is completely and totally asinine, especially when you're a company that's been riding it's own nostalgia wave for an obscene amount of time.

[AshleyAshes]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Patents and copyrights last FAR too long, and enable companies to behave egregiously, which in my opinion Nintendo is doing.

...Patents only last for 20 years and every single SNES patent is expired... But you call that 'Egregiously'?

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Patents only last for 20 years and every single SNES patent is expired... But you call that 'Egregiously'?

Not him but:

1) Yes, patents lasting for 20 years is way too long at the rate technology advances these days. Imagine if someone developed a revolutionary technology for cars which would make electric vehicles be light-years ahead of where they are today. Giving a government sanctioned monopoly to a single person or car maker for 20 years could be devastating. Or how about all the insane software patents where companies no longer patent solutions, but rather gets patents to problems and no one is allowed to solve them except themselves?

 

2) He said "patents and copyright". Copyright is for sure far too long. Nobody except a shill for big companies like Disney, or a mental person, will agree that the current copyright system is good and healthy.

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not him but:

1) Yes, patents lasting for 20 years is way too long at the rate technology advances these days. Imagine if someone developed a revolutionary technology for cars which would make electric vehicles be light-years ahead of where they are today. Giving a government sanctioned monopoly to a single person or car maker for 20 years could be devastating. Or how about all the insane software patents where companies no longer patent solutions, but rather gets patents to problems and no one is allowed to solve them except themselves?

 

2) He said "patents and copyright". Copyright is for sure far too long. Nobody except a shill for big companies like Disney, or a mental person, will agree that the current copyright system is good and healthy.

So, exactly how long do you think a patent should last, given that a company must have a financial incentive to develop that technology in the first place?

 

If I'm going to invest money into the research that makes electric vehicles 'light years ahead of where they are today' in a way that apparently no one else can manage, how long will I get to exclusive rights to sell and license my technology?

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

So, exactly how long do you think a patent should last, given that a company must have a financial incentive to develop that technology in the first place?

 

If I'm going to invest money into the research that makes electric vehicles 'light years ahead of where they are today' in a way that apparently no one else can manage, how long will I get to exclusive rights to sell and license my technology?

Not a fan of how you completely ignore half of the argument (copyright).

 

As for patents, I don't know. What I do know is that it is seriously hindering innovation and competition in a lot of areas. For some things it makes sense (like medicine which is extremely hard to develop, but easy to copy), but for other things (like all software patents) makes absolutely no sense and I would like to see them completely removed.

How about different tiers?

 

Actually, just fixing the extremely broken patent office could help a lot.

 

In any case, exclusive rights is not, and should not, be the only reason for develop something.

I mean... Did Tesla go under when they made all their licenses free to use? Did Volvo go under when they made the three-point seatbelt free to use? Hell, Mercedes had a patent for crumble zones which they decided to not enforce. I am not sure if they ever made a formal statement about it, but they never went after manufacturers who infringed on their patents.

 

Quote

Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers.

-Elon Musk

 

But hey... What would Elon Musk know about developing electric cars, right?