MAME and the law.

[Vulgar Soul]

I recently read thread by Nitz about a MAME cab being found in a theater. I've always wondered about all of you in the BYOAC community's stance on the legal use MAME. If this thread is a little too much for safe, legal discussion, please feel free to lock it mods.

Now first off, I believe in MAME, and emulators in general, as a means of preserving and recreating a history of gaming media that is no longer available. I DO NOT support the use of MAME or emulators in a large, public, commercial environment for profit.

Now, Like many of you here, I plan to use MAME and build a personal arcade machine and game room hall. I miss the old days of the arcades and real social gaming, and am excited to bring it back in my own home. Now, many people put coin doors on their custom machines, and wire it to accept quarters/tokens. I would like to do the same things, not because I want to make money off of people, but me and my friends are really serious about recreating that old arcade experience at home, which includes dropping some quarters and playing a game. Is this drawing the line a little? I mean, MAME cabs in an actual business, especially accepting money, is obviously a big violation and disrespect of what MAME was meant for. But in the private environment of someone wishing to recreate arcade gaming in his home, is this drawing the line?

Again, I would like a good discussion but I hope this isn't bringing legal MAME/emulator discussion too far on the board. If it is, please feel free to lock/delete thread mods.

[andrewbean90]

i agree build mame cabs at home not in movie theaters

[SlayerAlex]

Basicly just dont make money off of it. You can have it in your home but dont invite family over and charge your cousins 6 Bucks for a game o NBA JAM! = o lol

If you made any money, Theres a million other people that would deserve that money more then you. so just dont.

[saint]

I don't mind a good philosophical discussion. A legal discussion is pretty short however. Using ROMs you don't own is illegal. What you are really leaning towards, I think, is a moral discussion. Is it moral to use ROMs at home? That discussion I leave to each of you.

[Malenko]

yeah, the legal thing is cut and dry. I own an NBA Jam PCB, but I cant take the PCB out of my NBA Jam cab and put a PC in there running NBA Jam on MAME and charge for it. This is of course assuming I got the tax sticker, etc



Morally, I dunno. I play games I dont own, more often then not I play games Ive never heard of or had access to. Im a player collector....just because I have MAME to play doesnt mean I dont want to collect a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- ton of real cabs.

[isucamper]

I don't mind a good philosophical discussion. A legal discussion is pretty short however. Using ROMs you don't own is illegal. What you are really leaning towards, I think, is a moral discussion. Is it moral to use ROMs at home? That discussion I leave to each of you.

Isn't it immoral to break the law?  Especially when the purpose is as lowly as playing a video game?

These discussions always turn into a personal justification for doing what we all do.  Which is fine.  I just don't think any of us should lead ourselves into thinking it's 'moral' or 'ok' to do it just so we can sleep at night with a clear concience.  People will say "the copywrite holders don't care about old games" or "it's not really hurting anyone" but there's no way of proving those claims in the general sense.  Its just a pacifier we're all sucking on.  

[Ginsu Victim]

People will say "the copywrite holders don't care about old games" or "it's not really hurting anyone" but there's no way of proving those claims in the general sense.  Its just a pacifier we're all sucking on. 

Most companies have turned a blind eye to it because they use the MAME team's resources to help make their retro collections or whatnot.

[Vulgar Soul]

Well morally, of course acquiring and owning roms is a whole other thing, but I think anyone has the right to use MAME in a private environment how he chooses. I think the whole point is to allow people (not businesses) to preserve gaming in their homes in any extent they would like. Of course we can just play MAME on computers, but we're mostly purists and hobbyists who just loved the arcades and want them as we recognize them in our homes, with as much authenticity as possible. My planned MAME cab will of course have free credit buttons, but a full featured coin door and ability to accept coins will also be included, mostly for nostalgic reasons and just genuineness. I suppose anyone can argue that if I really wanted authenticity, I'd buy a legal, commercial machine instead of building a computer disguised as one, but it's all for the hobby.

Of course that's "morally" speaking, the laws of MAME are very clear. I guess whatever you do with MAME (and roms/emulators) in the privacy of your house is just a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of deal.

[councilface]

Isn't it immoral to break the law?  Especially when the purpose is as lowly as playing a video game.

No.

[Malenko]

Isn't it immoral to break the law?  Especially when the purpose is as lowly as playing a video game.

No.

- to your quote fu


Also, thats like saying its immoral to jaywalk.

[divemaster127]

this has been discussed 100's times you can search the forums for lots of opinions

[isucamper]

I can't tell for sure if the last few posts were disagreeing with me or not, but I think they were.

Is it immoral to jaywalk?  Ask the guy running across the busy inner city intersection that causes a 5 car pile up.  You throw that out there without quantifying it.  In general, is it immoral to cross the street?  No, but its probably not illegal to do it in most cases.  Is it immoral to break unenforced laws?  Now we have a debate.  I say yes it is even though you could give me 10 examples where it's ridiculous to think so.  Call me square.  Laws are there for a reason.  Doesn't mean I don't drive 5mph over the speed limit or have a library of roms on my MAME cabinet, but I'm not going to tell my kids its ok to do it or justify it to myself so I can sleep better.

[SlayerAlex]

I can't tell for sure if the last few posts were disagreeing with me or not, but I think they were.

Is it immoral to jaywalk?  Ask the guy running across the busy inner city intersection that causes a 5 car pile up.  You throw that out there without quantifying it.  In general, is it immoral to cross the street?  No, but its probably not illegal to do it in most cases.  Is it immoral to break unenforced laws?  Now we have a debate.  I say yes it is even though you could give me 10 examples where it's ridiculous to think so.  Call me square.  Laws are there for a reason.  Doesn't mean I don't drive 5mph over the speed limit or have a library of roms on my MAME cabinet, but I'm not going to tell my kids its ok to do it or justify it to myself so I can sleep better.

the thing is though, that sometimes there can be 2 different places where the laws are different. Does that mean that Morality is determined by location and not by the act itself? Does driving fast in Germany not pose the same risks as driving fast in America? and even then is morality of an action only determined by its worst possible consequence? i dunno so many variables. To me, breaking law= Immoral seems to easy.

I look at it more at a "Does it hurt someone?" thing then more then a "Can i get away with it?" thing.  And really when it comes to the old games i dont feel like it hurts anyone.

Also can someone tell me why people always say "Support the company...buy the PCB!"? when it seems to me that 100% of that money goes to the guy that sells it (and UPS). i dont see how that supports the company. = /

[Vulgar Soul]

Lol, this thread is starting to feel like a freshmen college philosophy course.

I don't know who to agree with, I see many people have interpreted in their own way what's right and wrong about emulators.

[syph007]

Seems like the era we live in, people only care about money.  So if you are causing someone financial loss, people care, if not, noone seems to. 

I think this is why the Daphne changes were made since digital leisure still sells that on DVD.  Pretty cool compromise though, as I understand it, you can get the Daphne files for it, if you own the DVD.  It sounds like it does some kind of check.

[RayB]

Compare it to this: Do you always drive at or below the speed limit?

[BadMouth]

What software is the Global VR - Global Arcade Classics running?  The games are officially licensed, but it looks like hyperspin over MAME to me.
http://www.globalvr.com/products_gac.html

I was playing one of these in a commercial setting over the weekend (on a ferry!).

......and as far as the industry getting screwed by me because I have a MAME setup at home:
>I had lost all interest in video games and considered them a waste of time until I discovered MAME around a year ago.
>I have purchased parts to build two new computers that I would otherwise have no use for (one for an upright cab, one for a driving cab).
>I have purchased 4 PC games in the past few months that I would have no desire to play with a keyboard or controller.
>I spent $20 at an arcade while on vacation this past weekend because I wanted to see how the classics compare to my home setup & also what the new games are like.
  I know that wouldn't be a much for many of you, but this is from a person who had absolutely no interest in going to an arcade a year ago.
 

[tylervalo]

My view on the subject is this.

Is using ROMs of games you don't own illegal?  Yes.
Will ANYONE ever be arrested for using ROMS?  Doubt it.

I'd bet money the original arcade manufacturers are thrilled people are using MAME to play their games today.  It's not like playing Burger Time or NBA Jam in your home arcade with your friends is going to cost the company's money, seeing as how you can't purchase those games new in the last 15+ years.

[Malenko]

I can't tell for sure if the last few posts were disagreeing with me or not, but I think they were.

Is it immoral to jaywalk?  Ask the guy running across the busy inner city intersection that causes a 5 car pile up.  You throw that out there without quantifying it.  In general, is it immoral to cross the street?  No, but its probably not illegal to do it in most cases.  Is it immoral to break unenforced laws?  Now we have a debate.  I say yes it is even though you could give me 10 examples where it's ridiculous to think so.  Call me square.  Laws are there for a reason.  Doesn't mean I don't drive 5mph over the speed limit or have a library of roms on my MAME cabinet, but I'm not going to tell my kids its ok to do it or justify it to myself so I can sleep better.

That's sort of a little far fetched don't you think? You cant take a worst case scenario and attempt to negate my point. If every time someone jaywalked it caused a 5 car pile up, then yeah, I'm on your side.  Laws are there for a reason I completely agree with you, the point I was making is breaking a law inst always the same as being immoral, though frequently it is.

If the law isn't broken then is it moral? Is that your guideline? If the law was changed and the age of consent was changed to 21, is it then immoral to have sex with 20 year old?  The law as your moral barometer is an odd standard. If something happens and you dont know the specifics of the law, do you look it up before you decide if its immoral?

[Slippyblade]

Law has absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics.  Laws are in place for very specific reasons.  Many of those reasons are to make it easier to live in a high density society.  Many of those laws are there for the simple reason of protecting monetary interests.  Many laws are in place purely as knee jerk reactions to one time events.  A TON of laws are there to satisfy folks religious demands.  Many laws are are blatantly wrong and some of those eventually get stricken from the books.

Since morals are being discussed, let me say that my morals and your morals, by definition, may not be the same.  To me, current copyright laws are immoral.  Do I DL roms as some sort of moral protest?  Nah - I dig the games.  I know full well I'm breaking the law, but am I am not in any way violating my morals.

Slippy

[isucamper]

If the law isn't broken then is it moral? Is that your guideline?

Absolutely not.  You're implying something that is completly unrelated to what I'm saying. 

My 2 cents:  Laws are there for a reason.  Just because they don't make sense to you doesn't mean that they don't serve a bigger purpose.  If anything, it's immoral not to follow them because it sets a bad example for those who the law are meant for. 

If your raising a kid, are you going to tell them:  "Don't worry about the laws son.  You don't have to do nothin you don't wanna!  Make up yer own mind!"

Again, I'm playing the devils advocate here, as like I said, its not like I don't drive 5 mph over the speed limit or have a library of roms on my MAME cabinet, its just they way people justify these things to themselves that bothers me sometimes.  We probably shouldn't do it, we do it anyway, fine.  Lets move on.  But lets not pretend like any of us are going to lead an after school club on where to download and how to use copywrited ROM files. 

[BadMouth]

delete, delete, delete.

[Hoopz]

This topic gets posted every few months and it follows the same general path of:

Why is/are Mame/emulation/roms legal/illegal
Discussion of DCMA
Intent of Mame and Mamedevs v. needs of end users
Obligatory post by Saint showing that BYOAC loves Mamedevs 
Original PCBs v. roms
Discussion of legal aspects from everyone except a legal expert in this particular area
What Nintendo, Atari, Mattel, Namco, or ______ do to protect their copyrights
Discussion of copyright law v. patents v. trademarks
General bickering
Discussion that DCMA doesn't apply to those outside the US

Someone needs to sticky one of these damn threads so that people can continue the same arguments ad nauseum without starting new threads.

[Malenko]

I didnt mean to imply, I was merely asking for clarification.  It is hard to discuss this topic with you because your replies seem so black and white on such a grey issue. If I were raising a kid , why do I have to tell him to either obey all of the laws or none, isn't there a middle ground? For example, it's safe to speed a little and be prepared to pay if you get caught; but its still not ok to rape puppies and kill babies.


BTW hoops, this one didnt follow that path still hilarious none the less. Saint should prune the thread and rename it "is breaking the law immoral?" Anyways, I'm only part of the problem since my replies are bumping this. I digress.

[Hoopz]

BTW hoops, this one didnt follow that path still hilarious none the less. Saint should prune the thread and rename it "is breaking the law immoral?" Anyways, I'm only part of the problem since my replies are bumping this. I digress.

It's early.  We're only on page 1.   

[Edwards80]

I didnt mean to imply, I was merely asking for clarification.  It is hard to discuss this topic with you because your replies seem so black and white on such a grey issue. If I were raising a kid , why do I have to tell him to either obey all of the laws or none, isn't there a middle ground? For example, it's safe to speed a little and be prepared to pay if you get caught; but its still not ok to rape puppies and kill babies.

Doesn't that create the risk that your kid will then start tongue kissing puppies with consent and only punch babies?

[isucamper]

I didnt mean to imply, I was merely asking for clarification.  It is hard to discuss this topic with you because your replies seem so black and white on such a grey issue. If I were raising a kid , why do I have to tell him to either obey all of the laws or none, isn't there a middle ground? For example, it's safe to speed a little and be prepared to pay if you get caught; but its still not ok to rape puppies and kill babies.

Can you give a list of laws that you would tell your child it's ok to break?  Would you even tell them it's ok to speed a little?  Sounds like you don't have kids (neither do I) but I think I would lean towards being overprotective and use the law as an excuse to tell them to drive 5 mph under the limit. 

[CheffoJeffo]

What software is the Global VR - Global Arcade Classics running?  The games are officially licensed, but it looks like hyperspin over MAME to me.
http://www.globalvr.com/products_gac.html

It predates Hyperspin by quite a while and was actually copied before that in the Ultrastyle FE.

[saint]

I didnt mean to imply, I was merely asking for clarification.  It is hard to discuss this topic with you because your replies seem so black and white on such a grey issue. If I were raising a kid , why do I have to tell him to either obey all of the laws or none, isn't there a middle ground? For example, it's safe to speed a little and be prepared to pay if you get caught; but its still not ok to rape puppies and kill babies.

Can you give a list of laws that you would tell your child it's ok to break?  Would you even tell them it's ok to speed a little?  Sounds like you don't have kids (neither do I) but I think I would lean towards being overprotective and use the law as an excuse to tell them to drive 5 mph under the limit. 

I have kids. The last thing I would teach them is mindless obedience to laws. I teach them that morality and the law are not always on the same side, and to use their judgment. For instance, we had a discussion on jaywalking. I gave them the hypothetical of jaywalking to save someone's life. I also teach them about civic disobedience, the costs thereof, and the value of doing so in the right circumstances.

This has already segued into a P&R discussion, so I'll end it with laws and morality are ideally, but often not, on the same side. One must weigh one's personal morals against the letter of the law and decide for oneself.

But ROMs are for the most part illegal, unless they're explicitly not (I wish StarRoms was still around).

--- saint

[atomikbohm]

I am the very proud parent of 3 children.  My 7 year old and I constantly have discussions about doing the right thing and what that means.  I got to admit that he would be much better able to site examples of when the law is "just wrong".  One of my favorite stories about the clarity of a child's mind is after watching an Indiana Jones Movie he asked me why The Germans were the bad guys (I'm 1/4 Austrian).  I explained a little about the Nazi's and that they did some "evil" things.  He then asked why weren't they arrested by the German Police.  I had a very difficult time explaining that the police were Nazis too and that's one of the reason's we went to war (not the complete truth but it was close enough for the conversation)  

Laws do NOT = morality.  People MAY = morality.

[isucamper]

atomik:  Bringing up Nazis.  Thanks a lot. 

saint:  well... well... what do you know!! (please don't ban me)

[saint]

saint:  well... well... what do you know!! (please don't ban me)

Heh. 

[Patent Doc]

Saint

Good job on trying to teach the difference between laws and morality.  I have a six year old and trying to explain that laws can be made by bad people is a tough concept for him to get.  He innocently believes that teh definition of good and bad is whether you violate a law. 

Being an attorney, I feel obligated to not violate a law if I can help it.  does that mean I agree with all laws or think anyone violating a law is immoral?...of course not.  Many..not all...traffic violations have no moral aspect to them.  That's why there is no intent element to the crime.  You either did speed, run the traffic light, fail to yield, double park, or you didn't.

The moral issue comes in with things like theft and killing.  With copyright infringement...like it or not...it is theft.  Personally, I think the copyright term for computer programs is WAY WAY too long.  I'd actually like it to see the term for computer programs limited to its initial commercial life or prohibited altogether and patents for computer programs be the mode of inforcement.  In my mind there is no moral issue if my use of mame is not depriving someone of a potential sale...if the game isn't being offered for sale commercially, then it should be OK.  I guess that's just where my moral compass falls...the law doesn't agree with me, but not agreeing with a law isn't a crime...violating it is.  By the way, copyright infringement will never result in an arrest...possibly confiscation of a computer as evidence, but the penalty is a fine...a big fine, but a fine nonetheless.

[Jack Burton]

many people put coin doors on their custom machines, and wire it to accept quarters/tokens. I would like to do the same things, not because I want to make money off of people, but me and my friends are really serious about recreating that old arcade experience at home, which includes dropping some quarters and playing a game. Is this drawing the line a little?

As long as you are the one supplying the quarters I don't have a problem with it. 

There are many other complexities to this issue, but as far as the coin door goes that's how I see it. 

If it really bothers you use tokens instead of quarters. 

[kronic24601]

Everything is highly dependent on if you believe in universal morality or relative morality (Right vs Wrong is it universally true, or relative to the person/society).

What I think we are talking about here is Ethics, which have a more social context. And since laws come and go depending on the society (e.g in many countries there is NO law against ROMS) then I'm inclined to think this isn't a right vs wrong issue ... simply an ethical issue.

When making any ethical decision I always use the Jack Bauer test. If Jack would do it, it's probably ok  

[Slippyblade]

By the way, copyright infringement will never result in an arrest...possibly confiscation of a computer as evidence, but the penalty is a fine...a big fine, but a fine nonetheless.

This is a digression...

Really?  I've seen a lot, many by RIAA     Here's an example.  Another.   And another  Here's a biggie

Sure, the actual charges spin off into the nether, but no matter how you slice it they are copyright arrests.  They are folks who are mixing music with samples, uploading to torrents and file sharing or in the last one, a security professional giving a lecture.

[Patent Doc]

This is a digression...

Really?  I've seen a lot, many by RIAA     Here's an example.  Another.   And another  Here's a biggie

Sure, the actual charges spin off into the nether, but no matter how you slice it they are copyright arrests.  They are folks who are mixing music with samples, uploading to torrents and file sharing or in the last one, a security professional giving a lecture.

I stand corrected.  My firm was involved in some of the early suits (not the ones you mentioned).  I guess what I should have stated that I was unware of anyone serving jail time as the punishment rather than just a big fine.  Oh well, shows you what I know...or don't

[Slippyblade]

I have to apologize for the vehemence of my reply too.  I've always been a believer in the old adage of making the punishment fit the crime and copyright and IP is one area of law that is so blown out of proportion that it makes me scream.  It's a bit of an exposed nerve to me actually.  Ranks up there with patent law, whatever happened to the notion of a patent needing to be, "Non-obvious to an expert in the field"  These days patents are less about innovation and more about being piled into a portfolio of vague, mysteriously worded garbage used to beat each other into submission with.  I mean, come on, the Scroll Bar?  Sorry - putting the words "on a computer" on the end of an existing patent does not make it a new innovation.

Slippy

[Havok]

What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law!

[Patent Doc]

I have to apologize for the vehemence of my reply too.  I've always been a believer in the old adage of making the punishment fit the crime and copyright and IP is one area of law that is so blown out of proportion that it makes me scream.  It's a bit of an exposed nerve to me actually.  Ranks up there with patent law, whatever happened to the notion of a patent needing to be, "Non-obvious to an expert in the field"  These days patents are less about innovation and more about being piled into a portfolio of vague, mysteriously worded garbage used to beat each other into submission with.  I mean, come on, the Scroll Bar?  Sorry - putting the words "on a computer" on the end of an existing patent does not make it a new innovation.

Slippy

MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE   .............Shhhhh my clients may be listening...or at least the competition.  How am I gonna make a profit if I actually have to start from scratch on an application? 

Seriously, though I have the same feeling some times.  Need I say...method of entertaining a cat with a laser...method of swinging a child in a swing....geeze....really?  Gives the profession a bad name.