So does this make Older Roms Legal ?

ScumBum

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
5,240
Reaction score
395
Location
California
Anyone understand this ?


http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.


2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. 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.
 
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.

I would ask, what is reasonable. By commercial marketplace, does this included the secondary market. Also, I do belive it say that it expired in 2009. It was a limited 3 year window of opportunity if it even was applicable.
 
Last edited:
Anyone understand this ?


http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.


2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. 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.

It says "for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive"

Those are the key words. It only protects libraries or archives, and it only protects them if they are using the games for archival reproduction or preservation.

In other words, this protects the people doing the preservation at MAME but doesn't protect the people selling and using MAME to play games for enjoyment (because they aren't libraries or archives and they aren't using the games primarily for preservation or archival reproduction).
 
I would interpret "reasonably available in the commercial marketplace" as heading to Best Buy or Fry's since the commercial marketplace would be defined as these type of electronic stores today.
 
There are a number of exceptions outside of this type of law. For example, you are allowed to have a copy if you own the original hardware. So, if you own a DK upright, you are allowed to have it on MAME.
 
From a lawyer friend of mine:

Oh boy … I would say if it's available online (ebay, craigslist, etc.) it's still reasonably available. But that might be at term of art used by copyright attorneys – in which case it could have a very precise meaning!

I guess my definition of reasonable is grossly different! :)

Tom
 
There are a number of exceptions outside of this type of law. For example, you are allowed to have a copy if you own the original hardware. So, if you own a DK upright, you are allowed to have it on MAME.

This is from Nintendo regarding this

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.


I take it as it is only legal if you created it yourself.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#copyrights
 
I believe that "reasonably available" refers to "first sale" from the copyright holder or its distribution.

For example, I would say that Ms. Pac-man, Pac-man and Galaga machines are still being sold under license and would be "reasonably available". I would also say that any software that has been released somewhat recently in an "Arcade Classics" type software package or console cartridge would also be considered "reasonably available". What does this leave WRT emulation? Quite a bit, but not most of our favorites.

At the same time, I consider copyright sort of invalid because of how it has been purchased by Disney recently and how it will be purchased again when the 95 year limit again approaches.
 
Anyone understand this ?


http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.


2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. 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.

In a nutshell, no.

If we set the Wayback Machine for 1998, this is the year the Digital Milennium Copyright Act was passed, making "circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works" illegal. Which is to say that the creation or possession of tools to make copies were made illegal, even if the use of the tools was for entirely legal purposes. This applies when there are "technological measures that control access," i.e. copy protection of some sort, though in practice any method (no matter how trivial) is all that's needed to pass this test. So even if you bought a copy of Modern Warfare 3, or The Godfather on DVD, or a Kindle eBook, and you technically have a fair use right to make a backup or watch or read it on a device of your choosing, it's illegal to actually exercise it, because you would be circumventing its copy protection.

However, the LoC is allowed to define narrow exclusions to this aspect of the law. In this case, there is an exclusion for breaking copy protection on obsolete software by a library or archive for preservation.

Obviously this is Kafkaesque absurdity, but ain't no politician going to withstand accusations of pirate sympathy just so they can do the right thing.

tl;dr no, ROMs aren't legal, and intellectual property law is a steaming pile of horseshit.
 
It's pretty safe to assume that any game ROM from basically the entirety of the video game era is under copyright and will remain under copyright forever unless explicitly put into the public domain by the copyright holder. Certainly for the rest of our lifetimes and our children's life times

You can probably make an argument for making a single archival copy of ROMs for a board you currently own, but that exception doesn't allow you legally to take that image and play it in MAME. Technically even downloading a ROM update and using that would be a copyright violation.

So by the letter of the law, services that will copy roms for you or allow you to download them are infringing. Most of the multi-games are infringing. All of the ROM hacks are infringing, etc. And don't say "abandonware" because there's no such thing.

Of course, the likelihood of being sued or prosecuted is pretty remote.
 
This is from Nintendo regarding this

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.


I take it as it is only legal if you created it yourself.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#copyrights

Interesting. I pulled the act and here's what it says:

§117. Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs
(a)
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 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:
(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, or
(2)
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b)
Lease, sale, or other transfer of additional copy or adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c)
Machine maintenance or repair. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if--
(1)
such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2)
with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d)
Definitions. For purposes of this section--
(1)
the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
(2)
the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.


Nintendo's spin is not exactly accurate but you do have to make the copy yourself or at least authorize someone else to do it for you. I don't read the "authorize" as allowing you to download a rom. You can definately create a copy from your own game though, and nothing in this section of the act stops you from testing that ROM using MAME.
 
It's pretty safe to assume that any game ROM from basically the entirety of the video game era is under copyright and will remain under copyright forever unless explicitly put into the public domain by the copyright holder. Certainly for the rest of our lifetimes and our children's life times

You can probably make an argument for making a single archival copy of ROMs for a board you currently own, but that exception doesn't allow you legally to take that image and play it in MAME. Technically even downloading a ROM update and using that would be a copyright violation.

So by the letter of the law, services that will copy roms for you or allow you to download them are infringing. Most of the multi-games are infringing. All of the ROM hacks are infringing, etc. And don't say "abandonware" because there's no such thing.

Of course, the likelihood of being sued or prosecuted is pretty remote.

Actually if you do research , maybe I can find it again , when it comes to Music CD's , you are to make a back up copy and use that and store the original so it doesn't get scratched . You can have one back up copy . Thats legal . So its actually encouraged to back up a back up copy .
 
On another forum I frequent there is a copyright lawyer, and he happened to be online right now. So I asked him a question about it.

First, he explained that it is referring to circumventing DRM. Second, he pointed out that it expired in 2009 (It does say "for the next three years")
 
Actually if you do research , maybe I can find it again , when it comes to Music CD's , you are to make a back up copy and use that and store the original so it doesn't get scratched . You can have one back up copy . Thats legal . So its actually encouraged to back up a back up copy .

I have, and you don't have that right. The one archival copy provision only applies to software.
 
Back
Top Bottom