Emulation hub Emuparadise removed all ROMs, fearing legal action

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

If that's a ROM site you're literally not supposed to link that.

It isn’t, just plugging a good indie games website. 

[PocketNerd]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

If that's a ROM site you're literally not supposed to link that.

It's not, it's a site that's primarily used to host indie games. Games that, until recently, either would not have been allowed on steam or would not have been able to penetrate that market.

[Mira Yurizaki]

If anything, these sites should just take down Nintendo's ROMs and call it a day. Nintendo's only going after them for their own IP and it just so happens they can claim a lot of money per infringement. What we should be worrying about is Nintendo setting a dangerous precedent who might want to start cashing in on litigation just because they own IP for something

 

I'm not really worried about the preservation of ROMs on the internet though. That's permeated enough that you can't get rid of its presence.

[Andreas Lilja]

On 8/10/2018 at 4:04 PM, Zando Bob said:

They could just offer all the older games for sale or as a mega bundle for $60 (say all the classics or something as one big pack), that'd be easy and safe, and people would buy that. But instead they like to make them unavailable, then complain when people make them available through other means. Pretty retarded but I guess companies just hate their old games now? 

Lol it's Nintendo.

 

Mario Bros, a 34 year old game, is like 8$

 

[EDIT] https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/27/16374274/nintendo-switch-mario-bros-arcade-archives-price

[mr moose]

On 8/12/2018 at 3:16 AM, valdyrgramr said:

https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp Since we're talking about it.  This actually disagrees from a legal standpoint against most of the silly arguments people make to justify ROMs and what not.  I get their argument, but again, they don't get to make the rules.   

This is from their website:

 

Quote

There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.

Which I don't believe has been challenged in a court yet and is just their interpretation of the law.  My interpretation (that you are allowed to have a second copy of any content as you legally purchased a license to use said content) is also valid until a judge/jury says otherwise. 

 

The primary issue I have with people and piracy is that many people weigh in on the debate defending piracy when they won't even buy the original.  There are very little scenario's that actually justify piracy.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

You are allowed a backup if you rip it yourself,  I think in some countries is how that works.  But, you aren't entitled to download a copy.

The law as I have read it does not specify you have to make it yourself:

section 117 copyright act:

Quote

(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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

My interpretation is that so long as you own an original license to that software you can authorize anyone to make a copy of that software for you. "I authorize emulation hub to make a copy of my legally obtained software".

 

As I said, this has not been tested in court yet, so either interpretation can be taken as correct. 

[8uhbbhu8]

We really need a law against this sort of thing. Companies should be forced to allow the emulation or third party distribution if they are not using it after a certain period of time. YES they made it. But if they are holding onto it as a just in case, there is no reason not to allow games to be shared that are not being made anymore. Hell if anything, officially authorizing the distribution of old software and endorsing it could easily lead to a huge new fanbases and massive amounts more people buying new games made from said series.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's been challenged in court with movies and music, hasn't it?  Like they don't go after people over ripping for private use, but they have gone after people for downloading without the consent of the copyright holder.

 

That section specifically applies to software.    Not sure how far it has gone in the courts with regard to music though.

 

EDIT:

Quote

(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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

Whole code can be found here:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

We really need a law against this sort of thing. Companies should be forced to allow the emulation or third party distribution if they are not using it after a certain period of time. YES they made it. But if they are holding onto it as a just in case, there is no reason not to allow games to be shared that are not being made anymore. Hell if anything, officially authorizing the distribution of old software and endorsing it could easily lead to a huge new fanbases and massive amounts more people buying new games made from said series.

There should be a law that says you have to give away everything you haven't used for more than certain period of time. There is no reason why you should keep that mower you never use, it should go to someone who doesn't want to pay for a new mower.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm still pretty sure a copyright holder can sue you if you download it.  When the copyright rule for backups was made they were referring to you doing it all yourself. 

It does not say that though, the law, as many laws are written, is written to allow wriggle room in interpretation.  That is why fair use is a defense policy and not  enshrined in law.  It is also why Tax law has loopholes, it is why the term "reasonably practicable" appears in workplace safety policy and "reasonable doubt" appears in criminal trials.  There is a reasonably large scale of human interpretation that determines the intentions of a person. 

 

The section clearly states that you are allowed to authorize someone to make a copy of that software.  What if I contacted emupardise and said I authorize you to make a copy of "xxx" as I have legally obtained an original license/product.  According to the act they are legally allowed to make a copy available to me.

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Going to a site where someone illegally uploads them then you download one is usually what gets a legal team after one or both of you.  I also highly doubt most people downloading ROMs even have a legit copy in the first place.

 

That is different to what I said, I was going to reiterate that this law doesn't permit people to just upload anything they want to the internet or that you could get anything you wanted without owning the original, but I didn't because I figured that was taken as read.

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

After some further research on the matter, https://www.zdnet.com/article/nintendo-sues-americas-dumbest-video-game-pirate/ one example

 

Depending on the court "fair use" is allowed for backups if you do everything yourself.  Going to a ROM site and downloading them, using rippers you bought, making rippers for others, and so on is way past the point of fair use.  And, that's when big bad Nintendo will come for you.  The states have very odd laws on how fair use works compared to like European countries.  Everything past doing it all for you by you seems to have been a victory in court for Nintendo.  Not sure the truth on this one, but I'm also reading that bypassing a DRM to get a copy to work yourself may or may not be legal depending on what the copyright holder decides there.

 

I think the issue here is I am simply arguing Nintendo's interpretation of the second copy law is not as black and white as they make it out to be.  That is just their interpretation.  I am only arguing that they cannot decide the law means I cannot authorize someone else to make a copy of my ROM.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

There's a few problems there that should be mentioned.  1.  There's a good chance on the used game market that your copy is a bootleg since there are more of them than legit copies. 

That doesn't really effect what I was saying. What if you buy a bootleg copy from a bootsale?  You have a bootleg copy. that means you're not entitled to make a copy of it.  Not sure how that changes what I said.

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

 2.  How is downloading an illegal copy not making you an accessory to a crime? 

I never said downloading an illegal copy was legal.

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

You are not allowed to upload a copy to be downloaded by others if the copyright holder doesn't agree to that, and considering Nintendo doesn't allow that the person who uploaded said copy just committed a crime. 

 

The law does not specify how you are to get your copy only that you can authorize someone to do it.   The law does not state you have to copy it yourself and it certainly doesn't state the method.  It simply says you are allowed to have one copy of that program made.  Getting emuparadise to do the copy and make it available to you does not go against this law.  Nintendo are specifically saying you have to make the copy yourself and how you must obtain it, neither of which are present in the law itself. The does not say you can't order your copy over the internet, it does not say you have to do the copy yourself.

 

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

By downloading that, even if you have a legit copy = downloading an illegally uploaded copy that sounds like you're now an accessory to me.

Again I never said it is legal to download an illegal copy. 

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

  It's already been ruled that using rippers to obtain said copy is also illegal unless you yourself made it for personal use.  Asking Emuparadise to do that, a company most likely using rippers is also illegal and Nintendo has successfully sued over that.  So, how are you legally getting said copy?  Cuz Nintendo has already collected on this.

 

How emuparadise gets that copy is up to them, the law says I can authorize anyone to make the copy for me. That is all I am arguing, nintendo are making claims that are not absolute. I am pointing out there is interpretational differences that have not been challenged in a court. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Oh, then I read that wrong.  But, I'm still pretty sure Nintendo would collect if rippers/downloading were involved.  That also depends on the court, part of my original argument.  For example, in France while "what Nintendo calls illegal" was thrown out because of their fair use laws, iirc.  In the States, courts seem to be siding more with Nintendo; however, with piracy and other methods, some judges will call bs on things as will a jury.  But, I think if an illegal method to obtain said backup was involved then there is a fair chance that you will be deemed an accessory.  I also am not sure of the likelihood of Nintendo going after someone obtaining it fair use technicality or just outright piracy.  They seem to be going mostly after people selling/making rippers and people abusing their copyrights by uploading.

Yes, if emuparadise try to circumvent DRM they can be held legally liable. I would argue it is not specifically the use of rippers that is the legal problem but circumventing DRM (speaking in terms of US and Australian law here).  If you make a copy at home and you circumvent DRM then you are still breaking the law even though the second copy rule applies. 

 

I think it is a given that most sites that permit the download of roms is technically piracy as most users do not own the original.  And to the end I agree with the law and the copyright owner, but being the autistic I am (regardless of whose side I sit on) I can't stand watching people misrepresent the law or reality to further their cause.  To me it greatly undermines the legitimacy of their position. 

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 I think they just get them from users uploading them or they obtain them through other forms of piracy.

Uploaded by rippers. That's why some roms have a screen showing who ripped the game. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 8/12/2018 at 5:26 PM, 8uhbbhu8 said:

We really need a law against this sort of thing. Companies should be forced to allow the emulation or third party distribution if they are not using it after a certain period of time.

Copyrights are good for the life of the author + 50 years after in most countries. So if you want this change to something shorter, you're going to literally have to fight the world to get it changed.

 

And I don't think a "use it or lose it" law would help, because this would hurt everyone but those with deep pockets who can defend the copyright. Imagine if you were an artist just starting out and you didn't use your work or couldn't defend it so you lose it. Now everyone is entitled to use your work however they want to.

 

On 8/12/2018 at 5:26 PM, 8uhbbhu8 said:

YES they made it. But if they are holding onto it as a just in case, there is no reason not to allow games to be shared that are not being made anymore. Hell if anything, officially authorizing the distribution of old software and endorsing it could easily lead to a huge new fanbases and massive amounts more people buying new games made from said series.

And then what if they want to start charging money for it?