How do you know your JAMMA PCB is legal?

[CheffoJeffo]

I actually asked the same thing about the 60-in-1 some years ago and, yes there is. The info was posted here (and elsehwere), so should be easy enough to find ... if you wanted to search.

Stop pretending that you are a victim -- you have a board that is not legally licensed.

Use it or don't use it -- the choice is yours.

Make it.

[RayB]

BTW, I still think we need one dedicated section for all legal questions.  This is actually popping up more and more and it almost always ends the same way. 

Like a WIKI?
The best place for threads like this is in P&R

[saint]

So, the "best" solution is to destroy my 60-in-1 board and buy some Ultracade/GlobalVR unit?

Uh, almost forgot, is there any actual evidence to confirm there is indeed MAME on that 60-in-1 PCB?

well, to sum this up:

illegal 100%

To make some item "illegal" in relation to copyright infringement you first need to register with copyright office, then prove your case in court, and finally issue a ban on import of the particular item via customs office. Until then it is only "allegedly infringing", and no police or whatever authority you try to complain to will be able or willing to do anything about it.



cotmm68030, thanks for those two.
I'd say that's check and mate, but if that is not convincing enough, then I have said it all.

Sometimes, when a lone voice speaks against the masses though the masses are all against him, that lone man is the voice of wisdom and reason and truth.

But not today.

You're just wrong.

Everyone's telling you you're wrong. Enjoy your reality.

[Hoopz]

BTW, I still think we need one dedicated section for all legal questions.  This is actually popping up more and more and it almost always ends the same way. 

Like a WIKI?
The best place for threads like this is in P&R

WTF is a Wiki?

Move these to PnR. Fine with me!   

[CheffoJeffo]

BTW, I still think we need one dedicated section for all legal questions.  This is actually popping up more and more and it almost always ends the same way. 

Like a WIKI?
The best place for threads like this is in P&R

WTF is a Wiki?

 

Move these to PnR. Fine with me!   

But then I can't see them ... oh, wait a minute ... 

[Malenko]

Uh, almost forgot, is there any actual evidence to confirm there is indeed MAME on that 60-in-1 PCB?

if I show you a link will you click it? heh

[saint]

Uh, almost forgot, is there any actual evidence to confirm there is indeed MAME on that 60-in-1 PCB?

if I show you a link will you click it? heh

 
:nlp

[CheffoJeffo]

Uh, almost forgot, is there any actual evidence to confirm there is indeed MAME on that 60-in-1 PCB?

if I show you a link will you click it? heh

 
:nlp

I didn't do it this time ... really ... it wasn't me ...
 

[Turnarcades]

To start with I thought this was just another noob naivity question. The more I read it the more I start to suspect the questions were being asked cos the o.p. Wants to do something with these boards they shouldn't. Saint backed up my first brief response and he knows best. Accept it dude, if you chose to do something dodgy on your head be it - you'll get no backup from us.

And saint, Drop this ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to hell.

[Malenko]

driver, please click this link

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=68206.0 :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp :nlp

now click it again and actually read it this time. Done? kk, now you know the 60 in 1 uses MAME and uses MAME without a license (the MAME dev HAZE already informed you MAME cant be used commercially at all) which means the board isn't legal, taxation or not. Quick fun fact, I googled "60 in 1 MAME" and found that thread.

[SavannahLion]

Since Driver-Thingie managed to see the post before I took it down, I've returned it to its original without any further editing as I had desired to do.

I'm only reasonably nice because I respect Saint, not you, Driver-thingie. I will not, however, mince words.

Note:

Rambus v. nVidia is a potential ban, it is still pending further review from the patent office. Second, it is a patent dispute, a similar but unrelated animal and unrelated to this discussion about copyrights.

Pending patent cases are inapplicable to copyright issues. Nintendo v. Tengen is a copyright case, this is the example I gave. Rambus v. nVidia is a patent case, that is the example you gave. The Tengen story is a prime example of how not to violate copyright.

Speaking of Rambus, I did a little research and discovered what I had suspected. I present this information for the benefit of our other members. In a nutshell, Rambus is seen as a fraudulent company. Rambus was a member of JEDEC which helps ensure companies license critical underlying technologies for a reasonable fee. Rambus is disputed to have crafted their patents to capture SDRAM and DDR technologies that were being openly discussed by JEDEC members at the time. Simply put, it's possible that Rambus simply saw where the market was heading and created patents to capture the market.

What both Driver and his friend have failed to point out is the following. Rambus has had 49 (from the article linked to) patent claims against nVidia invalidated last year alone and stands to lose the last three still standing. Probably due to the JEDEC discussions and proof of prior work. What is also failed here is that Driver's question is thus:

1.) U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Nvidia violated three of five patents held by Rambus which could lead to a possible U.S. ban on the import of some Nvidia products. -- Are those Nvidia cards illegal? YES/NO

This question does nothing to consider the role of the patent office rulings as well as Rambus' forced patent licensing to nVidia. Yes, forced. If nVidia is required to license those technologies, they're doing it under their own terms, not Rambus'.

A point cotmm68030 that seems to support Driver's statement is actually taken out of context. You will need to read the article in its entirety to fully comprehend that sentence.

This is exactly the reason why I, and others on this forum, have told people like you, Driver, to do the research. Examples like this can easily take up entire threads in their dissemination alone. Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.

You have consistently failed requests to cite sources to support your claims. I, on the other hand have either given you direct links to government sites governing the laws in question or have instructed you to Google several sources on your own. In fact, your entire argument is now reduced to the same two "sources" you cite yet did not read or fully researched.

Your argument that MAME is illegal per 1201 is incorrect. You have not considered sub section f or g as it would apply to MAME. Nor have you made any determination of the applicability of any other copyright section in this matter. In fact, MAME is protected under the court outcomes of Coleco v. Atari and again under Bleem! v. Sony. Both copyright cases I've have referenced in previous posts. In a nutshell, MAME, by itself, is not illegal.

[Driver-Man]

It is illegal to buy stolen goods.

Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. [Dowling v. United States (1985)] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law

driver, please click this link

saint: First - the 30-in-1 boards, 48-in-1 boards, and I believe 60-in-1 boards are not MAME derived as far as I know.

FrizzleFried: I also have not heard of any law enforcement agency ever taking action against an operator, supplier,  or reseller because of a 39-in-1, 48-in-1, or 60-in-1 board.

Hawk Daddy: In my opinion, the 48 in 1 and 60 in 1 boards, are ok as long as they do not run MAME
==============================

Wrong link apparently. But don't you think MAME should make some more official statement about it before you ask me to destroy my PCBs?

Nintendo v. Tengen

Finally we have found some common grounds, but the conclusion was that Tengen Tetris is NOT considered "bootleg", "pirated" nor "illegal".  

Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.

I believe it is very relevant, it all classifies under "Intellectual Property Law", have alike scope and application and is similarly handled in courts. The point from both these cases, Nintendo v. Tengen and nVidia v. Rambus, is that customers never even needed to worry about anything. -- Customers (end-user) are not supposed to disassemble their hardware to see if there was any IP infringing going on, and they were not required to follow news and read forums to know whether they have suddenly become criminals.

You have consistently failed requests to cite sources to support your claims. I, on the other hand have either given you direct links to government sites governing the laws in question or have instructed you to Google several sources on your own. In fact, your entire argument is now reduced to the same two "sources" you cite yet did not read or fully researched.

I'm not saying "you are wrong", simply that nothing there says you are right.

It is clear DOWNLOADING and SELLING is illegal. BUYING? Well that is far less clear, it is simply not addressed for the scenario where it is not immediately apparent the item violates any IP, and especially when it is taxed and available in shops everywhere.

Yes, you could make a conclusion that BUYING pirated DVD on the street is illegal, but for something to be "illegal" and "available in stores", that is contradiction to start with.



*** I got your post while it was still there, it was pretty good, and friendly.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

It is illegal to buy stolen goods.

Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. [Dowling v. United States (1985)] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law

"deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."  - MGM v. Grokster (US Supreme Court)

"Generally such indicia is held to indicate a substantial theft of copyright property; but, taking all the evidence together, I am satisfied that the items selected as tests constitute the bulk of all the items taken, and that they are of small moment in comparison with the whole."  Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n (US Supreme Court)  (Case involved one company copying information from a reference book published by another company containing information like lists of merchants and manufacturers)

"A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft." - Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.  (US Supreme Court)

"Defendants maintain that, because they are persons of ordinary means, high penalties necessarily are an abuse of discretion. Yet the statute does not require judges to set penalties according to wealth, and we held in BMG Music that serious penalties for the theft of intellectual property are not confined to the wealthy."  - Directv, Inc. v. Barczewski  (7th Circuit Court of Appeals) 

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=105787.msg1121163#msg1121163

[Driver-Man]

Thank you again cotmm68030. It's interesting to see how "knowingly" and "deliberately" complicate the situation further.
==============

I have good news. I have found evidence Amstard (and ZX Spectrum) roms and ALL THE GAMES and everything are "legal abandonware".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware - "Companies do sometimes voluntarily relinquish copyright on software, putting it into the public domain, or re-license it as free software or as freeware. id Software is an early proponent of this practice... Other examples include Amstrad, which supports emulation and free distribution of CPC and ZX Spectrum hardware ROMs and software..."

Did I get that right, does that really mean what I think? If so, where can we find some official statement about it?
I tried to search Amstrad.com, but no luck.

[Turnarcades]

Zzzzz

[CheffoJeffo]

FWIW, I had been looking for a case that I remembered of where a vendor had cabinets seized because the vendor used xx-in-1 boards ... which they had purchased, been invoiced for and paid tax on. 

I found the details this morning in one of Ken Layton's posts over on KLOV.

From Replay magazine:

FEDS SEIZE ALLEGED CLASSIC VIDEOGAME COPIES
(Posted November 6, 2009 -- 3PM)

A load of recently confiscated games were reportedly illegal classic video titles, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department. As reported earlier by RePlay, federal customs officials seized 168 coin-op videogames at the Los Angeles seaport on Oct. 23, 2009.

“The shipment had a total domestic value of $138,000 and a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $672,000,” federal officials declared in a release to the media. “CBP officers seized the videogame machines on October 23 after confirming the videogames were not legally authorized. The shipment had arrived inside a sea container from China.”

The machines in question contained several copyrighted videogames, which are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and recorded with CBP. The videogames found on the coin-operated machines were Frogger, Scramble, Time Pilot, Ms. Pac-Man, Super Pac-Man, Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong 3 and Donkey Kong. CBP seized the items when the importer was unable to provide authorization from the owners.

CBP has designated intellectual property rights enforcement a priority trade issue, devoting considerable resources and personnel to property rights enforcement. CBP’s strategic approach is multi-layered and includes seizing fake goods at our borders, pushing the border outward through audits of infringing importers, cooperation with our international trading partners and collaborating with industry and other government agencies to enhance these efforts.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation’s borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws.

[Driver-Man]

 
   1UP           HIGH SCORE
 984290            984290

 ***************************************
 * CONGRATULATIONS! THE WINNER IS YOU! *
 ***************************************

           G A M E   O V E R



            FAR OUT PLAYERS
      1 CheffoJeffo      984290
      2 FruityFrank       58010
      3 CrushRoller       57430
      4 ManicMiner         2470
      5 AAAAA               120



             INSERT COIN      
                              CREDIT 00

[Driver-Man]

CheffoJeffo,




Very good, I applaud you once more. -- Could you also dig up, somehow, a follow up on that? I wonder what were the charges and if the importers said: "we did not know", and also if there were any international proceedings held for exporters.

[Malenko]

It was the right link you assclown, holy ---fudgesicle--- do you have selective reading! Did you miss this post?

I am led to believe that ALL of the mutligame boards ARE infact MAME based.  The lower capacity ones appear to be running an older version of MAME (0.36 era and before) that has been ported to the SH2/4 and ARM cpus found on the boards.  I've been sent an extract of one of the roms from them which contains MAME-like structures with some copyright strings etc. blanked out.  They're probably ported from the Dreamcast versions and such and only run a limited number of games because each one has been hacked to run faster, and they can make more profit by selling more kits.

I've been pointed here because some people still apparently want to argue that these things are legal.  They're not.

AND

I've been sent partial dumps of several of these from fried boards.  They contain tell-tale signs of being MAME, for example mame.cfg files, mame.dk readme, MAME romset names, disclaimer strings disabled but not deleted etc.

[Driver-Man]

Malenko,

You are the weakest link, good bye.

[CheffoJeffo]

 
   1UP           HIGH SCORE
 984290            984290

 ***************************************
 * CONGRATULATIONS! THE WINNER IS YOU! *
 ***************************************

           G A M E   O V E R



            FAR OUT PLAYERS
      1 CheffoJeffo      984290
      2 FruityFrank       58010
      3 CrushRoller       57430
      4 ManicMiner         2470
      5 AAAAA               120



             INSERT COIN      
                              CREDIT 00

Say it with me ... "Cheffo's right!"

Attaboy!

[Malenko]

Malenko,

You are the weakest link, good bye.

I disagree, someone provides you with the info you've been begging for and in return you want them to find follow up info for you? Is your gooogles broken?

Very good, I applaud you once more. -- Could you also dig up, somehow, a follow up on that? I wonder what were the charges and if the importers said: "we did not know", and also if there were any international proceedings held for exporters.

Its epic I told you to go back and re-read the link and you didnt. you just picked out what seemed to put you in the right and ignored everything else.

Also,
http://www.nesplayer.com/features/lawsuits/tengen.htm

[DashRendar]

[JustMichael]

Driver-Man,
Running any type of "bootleg" board for profit just invites the copyright holders to come in and take everything you own.  The multigame arcade cabinets are easily spotted and reported to either the FBI and/or the copyright holders.  So if anyone gets mad at you (or your staff) for anything,  expect them to report you.  The copyright holder(s) will sue you and have the court freeze your assets (can't take use your bank account(s) or sell your stuff) until the trial is over.  When you can't produce a licensing agreement with the copyright holder(s), the court will give them all your stuff.  As this is going on, they will have made sure that the FBI starts investigating you and then you will face federal charges.  Since you were clearly doing this for profit, the federal court will most likely give you a very hefty fine and at least some prison time to remind you that doing that is wrong.

Considering what you can and most likely would lose by running multigame boards for profit, it isn't worth the few dollars a day they would bring in.  Be smart and stick to single game boards.

[Driver-Man]

The multigame arcade cabinets are easily spotted and reported to either the FBI and/or the copyright holders.

"Multigame" does not imply "bootleg" or "illegal". Ultracade Technologies had been handed a 35-count felony indictment by the United States District Court. -- Are any of the Ultracade machines owned by people (who got tax invoice for their purchase) illegal?

So if anyone gets mad at you (or your staff) for anything,  expect them to report you.

I said I only bought these PCBs to play, and that is the main argument - whether is it illegal to BUY them, only then comes the question if it would be illegal to SELL them once you've been told it is, or it might be, a bootleg.

The copyright holder(s) will sue you and have the court freeze your assets (can't take use your bank account(s) or sell your stuff) until the trial is over.

Bogeyman will get you and eat your teeth.

I'm CUSTOMER, I BOUGHT it, I did NOT MAKE it, ok?

What's more, copyright holders did not press any charges against Ultracade, did they? And no one pressed any charges against anyone in this case where federal customs officials seized 168 coin-op videogames at the Los Angeles seaport. Also, no copyright holder pressed any charges against any CUSTOMER/CONSUMER/BUYER, no matter how many IP were infringed in any one single item in the world, ever.

When you can't produce a licensing agreement with the copyright holder(s), the court will give them all your stuff.

Earlier we established there would be no licensing agreement even if those were genuine Pac-Man or whatever boards. Just like when you buy Nvidia card you do not get any Rambus licensing agreement. Which raises the question how did they establish these boards are not properly copyrighted in the first place.

As this is going on, they will have made sure that the FBI starts investigating you and then you will face federal charges.

Would I face federal charges if I BUY Ultracade machines?
Would I face federal charges if I OPERATE Ultracade machines?

Since you were clearly doing this for profit, the federal court will most likely give you a very hefty fine and at least some prison time to remind you that doing that is wrong.

As I said in about every third post, I only bought these PCBs to play.

Should anyone go to prison for buying Tengen Tetris, Nvidia or Ultracade?



Malenko,

Haze found no proof, someone's opinion is not acceptable source even if it was Nicola himself, especially without any actual evidence presented. On the other hand I'm pretty sure 60-in-1 works with MY version of "MAME", which is not derived from MAME.
=======================



Anyway, what is the issue with MAME demanding non-commercial use? Everyone obviously is very emotional about it, as if there was some actual reason, need or necessity for that to be so.

Just like with legalization of drugs or prostitution, has no one thought that making MAME license free for commercial use would actually be beneficial to whatever goals and purposes MAME is pursuing? At least they would have better chance to be credited, and how cool would it be to see MAME credits on legal machine in real arcades?

That would also make a fair market for everyone, plus healthy competition, so all you cabinet builders could compete with Chinese or Ultracade if you were allowed to sell MAME units (no game ROMs). Everyone wins, so what is so important and worth fighting for about "non-commercial use only"? Is there any reason for it, any at all? -- If MAME could reach settlement with factory of 60-in-1, what would they want?

[SavannahLion]

Nintendo v. Tengen

Finally we have found some common grounds, but the conclusion was that Tengen Tetris is NOT considered "bootleg", "pirated" nor "illegal".

Once again, I have never said Tetris was a bootleg or pirated, you inferred that fact on your own. Tengen v Nintendo is a cut and dry case of a copyright violation, yet Tetris (ie, the ROM) is not at issue here. Never was. In fact, if the Atari lawyers didn't ---fudgesicle--- up by taking the copyright and letting the engineers do their thing the outcome would have been reversed. If you had read about the case, you would have known that.

Once again, the outcome of the nVidia v. Rambus issue is irrelevant as this is a copyright discussion not a patent discussion.

I believe it is very relevant, it all classifies under "Intellectual Property Law", have alike scope and application and is similarly handled in courts.

Yes they are under IP, but no, they are not handled similarly in courts. 9th Circuit Court stated in Sony v. Connectix that if Sony wanted to prevent copying of their copyrighted materials for the purposes of reverse engineering, then Sony should have patented it. Furthermore, there are many examples in court where the scope of either (and Trademark) are handled differently because of their application. In short, if copyrights and patents were so similar and alike in their scope and application then you would not see companies apply for both Patents and Copyrights on the same end consumer products. Sometimes a dizzying number of patents and copyrights may apply to a particular product.

There is a particular reason why there are entirely separate agencies that handle copyrights and patents.

The point from both these cases, Nintendo v. Tengen and nVidia v. Rambus, is that customers never even needed to worry about anything. -- Customers (end-user) are not supposed to disassemble their hardware to see if there was any IP infringing going on, and they were not required to follow news and read forums to know whether they have suddenly become criminals.

The people that you claim to not know the product they buy (from nVidia or Atari) is banned is a far cry from someone like you who buys a X in 1 board and tries to apply the same.

You have consistently failed requests to cite sources to support your claims. I, on the other hand have either given you direct links to government sites governing the laws in question or have instructed you to Google several sources on your own. In fact, your entire argument is now reduced to the same two "sources" you cite yet did not read or fully researched.

I'm not saying "you are wrong", simply that nothing there says you are right.

It is clear DOWNLOADING and SELLING is illegal. BUYING? Well that is far less clear, it is simply not addressed for the scenario where it is not immediately apparent the item violates any IP, and especially when it is taxed and available in shops everywhere.

Yes, you could make a conclusion that BUYING pirated DVD on the street is illegal, but for something to be "illegal" and "available in stores", that is contradiction to start with.

It's stupid to hang your entire "legal" argument off of paying taxes. California wants to tax marijuana and it allows "medical" marijuana, marijuana is still illegal under federal laws. U.S. federal laws trump state laws. Yet California is still going forward with the ballot measure.   It may be a contradiction to you, makes sense to me.  

From the get go, you've been trying to shoehorn one law in an attempt to trump another. I can freely go to a dozen retailers in my area and buy any number of merchandise I know perfectly well violates copyrights and maybe a patent or two. I'll also get taxed for it. I'll even get an itemized receipt. Still doesn't legalize what I buy. And what about when I don't pay taxes for that product? ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, if paying taxes legalizes an illegal product, you can bet the U.S. would have the highest tax income in the world. No U.S. government agency would ever have a budget problem, every citizen would happily pay their taxes.

The mistake here is that you're misappropriating some strange concept that a retailer must be legal in every aspect, even going so far as to represent one government or another in its taxing. Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, even Wal*Mart broke a few laws to make the sale.

Taxing a product does not make that product legal, period. End of discussion. That's how it is, take it or leave it.

=======

Oh for ---smurfs--- sake.... there's more?

As this is going on, they will have made sure that the FBI starts investigating you and then you will face federal charges.

Would I face federal charges if I BUY Ultracade machines?

You can, but there are usually mitigating factors to consider.

Would I face federal charges if I OPERATE Ultracade machines?

Not enough mitigating factors to make that determination.

Anyway, what is the issue with MAME demanding non-commercial use?

I've linked this once before, I'm not going to bother again. MAME will not.

Besides using Bleem! and Coleco as effective shields, they are also likely using the Reverse Engineering clause in the copyright law to protect their interests. Allowing MAME to be used in a for-profit matter as you describe would shift the legal status of MAME. While Bleem! and Coleco only had to go against one company each, there is no telling what would happen if you get enough irritated copyright holders, some with much deeper pockets than MAME, to go on the attack. Get this through your head, MAMEDev will not risk the future of the project to make a few dollars.

edit: fixed typos and bad markup

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

-redacted-

[Driver-Man]

Once again, I have never said Tetris was a bootleg or pirated, you inferred that fact on your own. Tengen v Nintendo is a cut and dry case of a copyright violation, yet Tetris (ie, the ROM) is not at issue here. Never was. In fact, if the Atari lawyers didn't ---fudgesicle--- up by taking the copyright and letting the engineers do their thing the outcome would have been reversed. If you had read about the case, you would have known that.

- Tengen Tetris infringes copyright
- 60-in-1 board infringes copyright

- 60-in-1 board IS bootleg/pirated 
- Tengen Tetris is NOT bootleg/pirated


Where is the logic that makes these two start the same and then end up completely different? What do you mean Tetris/ROM is not an issue, what is?

The people that you claim to not know the product they buy (from nVidia or Atari) is banned is a far cry from someone like you who buys a X in 1 board and tries to apply the same.

How far? Where is the line, where is the difference?

I can freely go to a dozen retailers in my area and buy any number of merchandise I know perfectly well violates copyrights and maybe a patent or two. I'll also get taxed for it. I'll even get an itemized receipt. Still doesn't legalize what I buy.

Can you name one such merchandise? -- Buy it, go to the police and report it, you will be entitled to get your money back, not charged with a crime.

Q. Would I face federal charges if I OPERATE Ultracade machines?

A. Not enough mitigating factors to make that determination.

Mitigating factors, like what?

Ultracade got a 35-count felony indictment, that is not enough?
60-in-1 was never involved in any court case, how is that enough?

[Malenko]

Malenko,

Haze found no proof, someone's opinion is not acceptable source even if it was Nicola himself, especially without any actual evidence presented. On the other hand I'm pretty sure 60-in-1 works with MY version of "MAME", which is not derived from MAME.

I've been sent partial dumps of several of these from fried boards.  They contain tell-tale signs of being MAME, for example mame.cfg files, mame.dk readme, MAME romset names, disclaimer strings disabled but not deleted etc.

[Driver-Man]

mame.cfg files, mame.dk readme, MAME romset names, disclaimer strings disabled but not deleted etc.

Malenko,

Sorry, that is good proof indeed.
Now it only needs to be made "official", placed somewhere on MAME website.


I suppose I'm bit blind after all. Thank you for your persistence.

Besides using Bleem! and Coleco as effective shields, they are also likely using the Reverse Engineering clause in the copyright law to protect their interests. Allowing MAME to be used in a for-profit matter as you describe would shift the legal status of MAME. While Bleem! and Coleco only had to go against one company each, there is no telling what would happen if you get enough irritated copyright holders, some with much deeper pockets than MAME, to go on the attack. Get this through your head, MAMEDev will not risk the future of the project to make a few dollars.

Ok, that makes sense and explains why people might get upset about it, but I slightly disagree anyway. I think MAME is very far away for ever getting in any trouble, as long as they themselves are not getting any money directly, donations are fine.

[CheffoJeffo]

I think that part of the reason why this thread drags and beats the same old glue-factory-bound-carcass is the simple matter that Driver-Man disagrees with the law and has his own ideas as to how the law works, which is fine, except that he keeps insisting that everybody else is wrong, including the MAMEDevs who are the only people here who have any say about MAME and how it is to be used.

Statements like "Buy it, go to the police and report it, you will be entitled to get your money back, not charged with a crime." sound sensible, but are not the way things work.

True, no cop is going to arrest you for turning in a pirate arcade board (DUH!), but you aren't going to get your money back either. Or, if are you getting that money back, I haven't heard of the jurisdiction where that is possible. In this realm, caveat emptor is most often the way of things. I'm reasonably certain that Driver-Man has never tried what he suggests and is certainly not a lawyer, so how would he know ?

We have seen a grand total of ZERO evidence of his "taxation == legal" argument. We haven't seen a copy of the text used in the customs inspection that he claims makes his 60-in-1 board legal. He hasn't even revealed what jurisdiction he lives in! He makes assumptions, applies some logic and tells us the result as if it were fact ... sure sounds like genesim.

We know, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 48-in-1 and 60-in-1 boards are MAME-based. We also know, with absolute certainty, that these boards are not sold as licensed copies of the games in question (which Driver-Man seems to conveniently ignore). They are not legal. Can you get arrested for owning them ? I doubt it, so long as you aren't reselling them or using them for profit.

Driver-Man, it is important for you to realize that MAMEDevs don't need *your* blessing to do what they want to do with MAME. Hell, it's pretty clear that at least one of them thinks you are completely ignorant and doesn't value your opinion in the least!

MAME is THEIR product, not YOURS.

It really is that simple.

FWIW, you haven't done enough research yet into our friend Mr Foley, who people here can tell you that I don't get along with, but he did have an attractive vision for an "iRoms"-like service where arcade ROMS could be legally licensed for home users. That is something that he wanted that I was certainly behind 100%.

[saint]

Now it only needs to be made "official", placed somewhere on MAME website.

Why? There's no benefit to the MAME project or MAME developers in doing so that I can see.

as long as they themselves are not getting any money directly, donations are fine.

These are contradictory. Donations are money received, no matter how one splits hairs.

[Driver-Man]

Why? There's no benefit to the MAME project or MAME developers in doing so that I can see.

Until then it's not reasonable to expect anyone would know, believe, or care about it.


================


FEDS SEIZE ALLEGED CLASSIC VIDEOGAME COPIES... A load of recently confiscated games were reportedly illegal classic video titles, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department.

We established there would be no licensing agreements even if those were genuine boards. Just like when you buy Nvidia card you do not get any Rambus licensing agreement.

Nintendo had to take Tengen to court for anyone to even question whether Tenegen Teteris might be "illegal".

So, how in the world did they ever establish those were not properly copyrighted and where is their legal justification to seize them without any court ever ruling in relation to this item or company that makes it?


What if two weeks later customs office released all the units to the importer with an apology?

[Turnarcades]

I hear Mr. Foley is looking for a lodger. Why don't you apply. Should get on like an arcade on fire.

[saint]

Why? There's no benefit to the MAME project or MAME developers in doing so that I can see.

Until then it's not reasonable to expect anyone would know, believe, or care about it.

Besides reading the MAME license? Or listening to an actual MAME developer?

[Malenko]

Why? There's no benefit to the MAME project or MAME developers in doing so that I can see.

Until then it's not reasonable to expect anyone would know, believe, or care about it.

If they are like you, they wont click a link and if they do, they wont read it anyway?

[SavannahLion]

So, how in the world did they ever establish those were not properly copyrighted and where is their legal justification to seize them without any court ever ruling in relation to this item or company that makes it?

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=105734.msg1120538#msg1120538

[amendonz]

driverman's either the dumbest guy on earth or an epic troll.

[jennifer]

         Ignorance would probably go a long way to a first time offender, Although I deal mostly with just boards, [I have thousands of them]
I would be hard pressed to even know it was bootleged until it was to late to realisticly to anything about it. Non of them came with any
kind of certificate.

[saint]

Ignorance might mitigate punishment, but not guilt, for any particular offense. There were two threads running throughout this topic though:

1. Is it illegal? (Answer: Clearly, yes, semantics and rationale aside).
2. Will you get in trouble? (Answer: Who knows. Depends on circumstances and the whim of the authorities).

There seems to be some confusion between points 1 and 2 above, be it through ignorance, stubbornness, or outright trolling -- who knows

--- saint