| Main > Main Forum |
| Why are rom selling sites not closed down? |
| (1/3) > >> |
| shateredsoul:
I was just curious.. and I won't mention any websites. It just seems weird how easily they are found online, yet they are still around... but one guy uploads one game and he gets a 1.5 million dollar lawsuits. |
| Gatt:
They are closed down, pretty frequently. Most of them get pulled in short order. The exceptions are the sites that sell things on physical media, instead of letting you download, those come under a different heading and end in a different kind of lawsuit. Much like the Ultracade one. The other exception are the sites hosted in countries with little or no regard for copyright law. Those countries no one's going to force them to pull things down. As far as the P2P goes, you're talking about a completely different scenario. The impact of that scenario is very different from 25 year old ROMs. Regardless, that's nothing compared to what's coming. I'm just hoping that retrogaming isn't lumped in with the enforcement that's coming. |
| ark_ader:
The economy plays a part too. Investing $$$ to close websites down for something that is trivial and probably 1% of the market is doing. Not cost effective for retro stuff. Besides can you go into a typical games store and buy NES, Genesis, DC and Xbox1 games new? Wii, 360, PS3 different ballgame completely. |
| Kman-Sweden:
Might be that some sites don't sell the actuall roms, they sell a membership or whatnot... |
| lilshawn:
in Canada (since we pay a copyright levy on the writable media) if you make a copy of a disk (even one you don't own or procured through ill gotten means) so long as you don't have to circumvent any copy protection on the media, it is absolutely legal to copy it. this levy makes it *legal* to copy audio CD's for personal use. Commercially selling copied audio CD's is still (obviously) illegal. It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use. --- Quote ---The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store. If someone steals a commercial CD, steals a blank CD-R, and then copies the commercial CD onto the CD-R, they are a thief, but they have not infringed copyright. You can legally lend a commercial CD to a friend, give him a blank CD-R, let him use your computer, and help him burn the CD-R which he can keep for his own private use. You can legally copy a commercial CD , keep the copy, and give your friend the original. You cannot legally make the copy yourself and give your friend the copy. Your friends Alice and Benoit really like the new commercial CD you just purchased. Alice borrows it and makes a copy for her own use. She then passes the commercial CD on to Benoit, who makes a copy for his own use. Benoit gives the commercial CD back to you. This is all perfectly legal. However, if Alice had copied the commercial CD, given it back to you, and passed her copy on to Benoit to make a copy for his own use, then copyright would have "probably" been infringed. There is some doubt here because Alice's original intent is important. In the strictest terms, her copy was no longer just for her private use. Pretty strange considering that the end result of examples 5 and 6 are exactly the same! --- End quote --- bwah ha ha ha |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |