Another legal roms source (pay-per-download)

[Howard_Casto]

Regardless of what you think this is one heck of a deal.  The orignal pcbs' new were approx 200 bucks per game.  Even if you bought them used now they are still approx 20 bucks per game.  And EVEN if you did own the pcbs according to recent free use laws you still wouldn't legally own them.  And if you buy the arcade classics cd you don't have the right to make copies of that disc (ie put them on your harddrive) with this liscense I believe you do.  Even if you don't you pretty much have to copy the roms to your harddrive with the classics and you get at least one legal download copy with starroms.  

So this is literally the only 100% legal means of getting roms for personal use on your pc at this point.  Even if you don't agree with the prices it would be a good gesture as a member of the community if you would buy some roms to support the cause.  Personally the ability to perserve aging arcade games legally is well worth the price.  

I have limited funds right now and even I, the king of cheap, will be purchasing them now that I know it's legit.  Do the right thing, support legal emulation use.    Afterall this isn't the RIAA, arcade companys aren't jerks sueing school children, so we should be nice and pay them the money they have earned.  

[Howard_Casto]

Well, now that it has been stated by both Starroms & the copyright holder that the system is legit, I guess my next question is who set the prices?  I would imagine the copyright holder had some input...

Since the game manufacturers have obviously been cognizant of emulation and rom distribution, and now that an easy & legal avenue of obtaining roms is available to anyone with an internet connection, does this mean that the copyright holder(s) may start policing rom possession/distribution more actively?  MAME has always been, at best, a real gray area.  Some op's, collectors, and repair services do use MAME for the intended purposes of saving the game rom info so replacements can be burned.

So what if other game copyright holders also think this is a fantastic idea to wring a few more $$ out of their old games, but they feel their games are worth more than a few dollars each?  I guess what I'm saying is when you invite the copyright holders to the table and ask permission to "legally" distribute their roms, you may not like their answer (especially if they want more than a buck or two for them).

Open a road for legal distribution, and enforcement may increase as well.  Just a thought, I could very well be wrong here.

Note that I do not condone piracy, but it happens and I'm sure almost everyone has taken part at some time or another...

I agree whole heartedly.  However, in the case of atari they really don't have the resources to handle legal actions right now.  Infogrames own them now and it's a small company on top of that.  I think that at best they could barely afford to protect their new xbox games, much less 30 year old liscenses.  

However if midway or nintendo were to buy into this idea then pretty much expect those games to disappear from websites.  They have the money and the power and they have been unsupportive of emulation in the past.  


Again, I also don't condone piracy, but when there isn't a legal method of aquiring items sometimes you have to bend the rules.  I'm just happy I might have another option in the future.  

[OSCAR]

Yeah, I was just presenting another viewpoint, not that I 100% agree with it or where it leads...

As Atari/Infogrames is the flagship in this venture, I wouldn't expect anything "bad" to happen,  as you said.  However, if the big boys buy into this, then things may not be all roses...

Could MAME possibly evolve into a commercially sponsored project??  Heh, just stirring the pot folks, don't take that serious.  (yet)    

[paigeoliver]

 

Luckily I already have all the Roms I will ever need, (which is of course only Time Pilot, Time Pilot '84, Super Basketball, Road Fighter, Crystal Castles, and Kangaroo, because those are the only real boardsets I own anymore).

 

I also took the liberty of downloading Kangaroo 3 times, since I have 3 of those boardsets.  

[SirPoonga]

Now here's a sweet idea: if Starroms.com could get Atari to trust them with ROMs of games that didn't get released (*cough* Marble Madness II *cough*)

I think that game will only come is Atari talks to the dude that bought the MMII cabinet

[Howard_Casto]

Luckily I already have all the Roms I will ever need, (which is of course only Time Pilot, Time Pilot '84, Super Basketball, Road Fighter, Crystal Castles, and Kangaroo, because those are the only real boardsets I own anymore).

 

I also took the liberty of downloading Kangaroo 3 times, since I have 3 of those boardsets.  

So you downloaded them illegally then.  Unfortunately, as I explained above, owning the original pcb does not legally entitle you to have a "backup" according to current copyright laws.  I don't see anything wrong with it, but legally speaking you are just as liable as a person without the pcbs.  Don't blame me, blame the RIAA.

[paigeoliver]

Luckily I already have all the Roms I will ever need, (which is of course only Time Pilot, Time Pilot '84, Super Basketball, Road Fighter, Crystal Castles, and Kangaroo, because those are the only real boardsets I own anymore).

 

I also took the liberty of downloading Kangaroo 3 times, since I have 3 of those boardsets.  

So you downloaded them illegally then.  Unfortunately, as I explained above, owning the original pcb does not legally entitle you to have a "backup" according to current copyright laws.  I don't see anything wrong with it, but legally speaking you are just as liable as a person without the pcbs.  Don't blame me, blame the RIAA.

I personally don't believe any current laws about music or software have anything at all to do with the ROM images from 2 decade old commercial equipment that was sold without any sort of licensing agreement. I have the manuals and paperwork to most of my games, nowhere does it say anything of the sort.

Also, the general public does not care one bit about copyright laws, nor do the police. Are laws truly valid if no one supports nor follows them? Kind of like the speed limits. Which are ignored by everyone including the police and official government vehicles.

The speed limits are laws that do not serve their intended purpose do to the fact that they are ignored by everyone. Instead they serve to provide a random tax on any given citizen when they decide to stop that citizen.

The copyright laws are exactly the same thing, except that instead of providing random income for cities and towns, it does it for companies. The general public cares about as much about copyright as it does about speeding.

Anyway. I am not going to take this arguement any further Howard. We simply don't agree on the subject. I firmly believe that copyright laws are wrong, and the concept of intellectual property is just a boil on the face of humanity.

[vishwats]

Did you guys try to buy THE CDs from Livewarehouse.com ? You can buy some of the Roms at a good price and you get a CD to show for it

[DaveMMR]

Now here's a sweet idea: if Starroms.com could get Atari to trust them with ROMs of games that didn't get released (*cough* Marble Madness II *cough*)

I think that game will only come is Atari talks to the dude that bought the MMII cabinet

Although I admit there's much I don't know about that - would Atari have actually sold him the rights to the game as well as the cabinet?  Cause otherwise I don't see how it would be his choice at all.  

[paigeoliver]

He may not have the rights, but I believe he owns every known boardset for that and a couple of other games. So, sure someone else may own the rights, but they might very well not have a copy of it in the first place.

In a bit of delicious irony about what is a legal rom file and what isn't, I noticed there are several prototypes available which Atari likely no longer had the original roms to.

[Lilwolf]

HAHAHAHA!  Now theres NO question for you if its legal to use someone elses backup (some question this... really!)

$134 and I purchased the whole set just to support the concept... heck I *own* a real stunrunner and still bought the rom!

[RandyT]

Did you guys try to buy THE CDs from Livewarehouse.com ? You can buy some of the Roms at a good price and you get a CD to show for it

Good link.

This is how I would love to see this done.  A business card CD for each title purchased.  They are small, cheap and a material record of the purchase.  They can also pretty much be be sent in a regular envelope for cheap shipping.

With some neat graphics screened on each one, you could even appeal to the "gotta collect them all" mentality.

Ahh, but I'm dreaming

RandyT

[Tiger-Heli]

Now here's a sweet idea: if Starroms.com could get Atari to trust them with ROMs of games that didn't get released (*cough* Marble Madness II *cough*)

I think that game will only come is Atari talks to the dude that bought the MMII cabinet

Although I admit there's much I don't know about that - would Atari have actually sold him the rights to the game as well as the cabinet?  Cause otherwise I don't see how it would be his choice at all.  

IANAL, but this is an interesting question.  The original games were (still are) sold before the era of software copyrights, so there was no license sold with the game, nor any restriction to what you do with the game (other than outright duplication and resale).

The real question is whether current copyright, intellectual property, and software protection and licensing laws apply to ROMs at all, and I don't think that has ever been answered.  (And may vary on what lawyer/judge you talk to).

[paigeoliver]

Now here's a sweet idea: if Starroms.com could get Atari to trust them with ROMs of games that didn't get released (*cough* Marble Madness II *cough*)

I think that game will only come is Atari talks to the dude that bought the MMII cabinet

Although I admit there's much I don't know about that - would Atari have actually sold him the rights to the game as well as the cabinet?  Cause otherwise I don't see how it would be his choice at all.  

IANAL, but this is an interesting question.  The original games were (still are) sold before the era of software copyrights, so there was no license sold with the game, nor any restriction to what you do with the game (other than outright duplication and resale).

The real question is whether current copyright, intellectual property, and software protection and licensing laws apply to ROMs at all, and I don't think that has ever been answered.  (And may vary on what lawyer/judge you talk to).

EXACTLY. My copy of Age of Empires 2 has all sorts of legal speak all over the box, and manual, and disc, and cover, and software.

My Crystal Castles machine doesn't say jack on the machine, doesn't say jack inside the machine, and doesn't say jack in the manual. So I don't understand how it can be retroactively affected. It had no license, so how can I be breaking that license?

[nighthawk2099]

I believe that in situations like that (software or products prior to lic.) that pocession of the original Roms and Boards is your lic. (much like pocession of an original music CD gives you the rights to own the CD).. heck.. .. I never did take law, so what do I know... just my 2 lincolns.

[Tiger-Heli]

EXACTLY. My copy of Age of Empires 2 has all sorts of legal speak all over the box, and manual, and disc, and cover, and software.

My Crystal Castles machine doesn't say jack on the machine, doesn't say jack inside the machine, and doesn't say jack in the manual. So I don't understand how it can be retroactively affected. It had no license, so how can I be breaking that license?

Well, I don't think Atari can say you can't play Crystal Castles on your machine anymore without downloading from StarRoms, but software licenses can be changed, and retroactively.  Here's a (real) example:

A certain company used to offer free downloads of add-on locomotives for Microsoft Train Simulator.  The downloads were free, and the included license said the add-on was free to download and use, free to re-distribute (as long as the original company was given credit), and free to use in other freeware add-on offerings.  I believe the license did prohibit selling the add-on, or using it in commercial products without permission of the authors.

At a later date, the company decided not to offer the package for download anymore, but to include it in a package that you would pay for.  They also changed the license to no longer allow free distribution of the add-on.

A lot of the add-on makers who had based their engines (cab view usually) on this product were understandably upset.

I thought the logic should apply that since I downloaded it for free, and since my copy said free to distribute, I could do anything I wanted with it, including posting it on a website, if I so desired.  I was quickly told in no uncertain terms that the current license basically revoked the license I was given, and I could not do this.  Basically, they also said that while I could continue using the free download, if it ever got lost and I didn't have a backup, I would now have to purchase it from them.  And I doubt I could even give it to someone else, even if I deleted all copies of it from my possession.

Point is - AFAICT, Atari can say "We are AMENDING the software license, and the only legal roms are those purchased from www.starroms.com."  All other roms must be removed.

They could also decide next week that they no longer wish to grant a license to starroms.com, and no licensed copies exist, and while you would still be able to use the software you originally downloaded, you would not be able to legally replace it if it got lost.

[clok]

Before reading, this is all "what If" Im not implying I or anybody else has any illegal roms.


I can only see one negative to this whole deal. And saddly its a pretty weak negative. MONEY... while owning the ROms legal is GREAT!, I'm all for it. The simple fact (not pointing fingers, or saying everybody does, but most do) is alot of us have Complete sets of MAME roms. If this pay to own Rom thing actually works, others will follow. Now look 1-5 years down the road, Every Rom is there for purchase, most at $1-5 a piece. Well, lets take out clones, non working roms, lets even just say the price is $1 a rom (a very fair price, maybe too fair, and not likley to happen). We are looking at a $3,000 investment (not counting machine building) to have a legal Mame Machine. Again, not really unreasonble for the amount of games you would have... But I would guess there are very few of us that could afford it.

Getting Legal roms (after having them other ways) is a sorta a Catch - 22, Most of us would happly pay for them if we could, but most of us couldnt afford them, so wont.

I would prefer to see somthing more like a $25-$50 pack of all one manufactures roms, bulk discount if you would. I would say, if i could own all  my roms legaly for around $500 area I would really look into it.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

Clok

[Nailz]

I can guarantee that most of the people that actually have all 4000 roms don't even play a decent fraction of them.  If they really had to, one could certainly pare down the list to essential "must-haves" of classics and nostalgic games they would want on a machine.

That being said, my list of must haves would be probably 100 to 200 games on the very outside, and I just don't think I could lay out $400-500 for 20 year old games that not that many are playing.  I think all of us on these sites are in a decidely small yet dedicated minority.

[RandyT]

Unfortunately, as I explained above, owning the original pcb does not legally entitle you to have a "backup" according to current copyright laws.

Howard,

Please post your references which back up this statement.  I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that this statement is factual.  Copyright law hasn't changed, AFAIK, in the last nearly 30years, and making an archival copy of  a computer program you purchased is indeed allowed.

Or have I missed something recently?  (entirely possible)

RandyT

*edit*
Narrowed "copyrighted material" to "computer program".  
Also, do not take this as legal advice!

[Tiger-Heli]

Unfortunately, as I explained above, owning the original pcb does not legally entitle you to have a "backup" according to current copyright laws.

Howard,

Please post your references which back up this statement.  I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that this statement is factual.  Copyright law hasn't changed, AFAIK, in the last nearly 30years, and making an archival copy of copyrighted material you own is indeed allowed.

Or have I missed something recently?  (entirely possible)

RandyT

Randy,

He might have gotten that from my page where I say (as an example):

I actually own a (Tron, Assault, Pac-Man) arcade main board (PCB), so I can keep the ROMS as backups.

[Lilwolf]

Also, Microsoft (or was it the music industry?  I forgot) and a few others have had the law changed in the last few years...

But they are all trying to remove the ability to create a backup...

It has been changed... And not in our favor....

Not to self.  Buy off some congress members to fix this!

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah according to the screensavers all intellectual copyrighted media (read software, music, roms, digital art, ect)  cannot be archived as a "backup" for any reason what-so ever unless the eula specifically says otherwise according to recent rulings by a California judge. It's part of the new modified DMCA which btw effects all forms of digital media, not just music.  As arcade pcbs didn't really have a eula it is illegal by default.  I didn't say that "big bad arcade industy" is going to sue you, because quite frankly, unlike the RIAA, they aren't jerks.  

However, this doesn't remove the technical illegality of the matter.  This new system is thus far the only legal way to play games on your harddrive in mame. (That I know of)

Btw the software "backup" law was taken out years and years ago (like 1990 or before)  by modified eula's on literally EVERY piece of commercial pc software revoking your right to make a backup.  You agree to the eula by opening the box.  Is that right?  Definately not.  Is it a legal way of doing it?  Unfortunately yes.  

Again I'm not trying to argue or make waves here.  I'm just trying to make a point that owning the pcb is more of a moral justification than anything else.  If any of you are going by the mame justification, keep in mind that mame was started several years ago, the "justification" section hasn't been updated at all since that time, and they aren't lawyers either.

[paigeoliver]

If Mame really cared about being legal, than it wouldn't support the bootleg romsets. Because there is absolutely no legal way to own a bootleg romset. Even if you own the "original" bootleg board.

[SirPoonga]

that still doesn't make mame illegal

[Valence]

I do not know what "screensavers" is or if that "Judge" was a federal one.

But here is the answer Section 117 of the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted in the Computer Software Copyright Amendments of 1980 in response to the recommendations of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works' (CONTU). Section 117 permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an additional copy of the program for purely archival purposes if all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful, or where the making of such a copy is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.  

That was the law that enabled you to do it in the first place.

The only change to this section from title I of the DMCA was that temporary copies in random access memory (RAM) are copies that are subject to the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction right

Now, I know that some states have superDCMA's but as I don't live in California nor do most of the people that come here, I could care less.

As far as the RIAA is concerned. I have not purchased a cd in 7 years. Nor do I have any downloaded music.  (Did download some Roy D Mercer a while back though.)

[hooded_paladin]

what it comes down to is,
some people download whatever roms we want.
some people own the roms of whatever boardsets they have.
just about no one dumps their own roms off their own boardsets to make it "legal", which it isn't really.
almost all of us have some roms/music/whatever that aren't ours.  Luckily, the arcade industry isn't as insane and greedy as the recording industry when it comes to copyrights.

[Howard_Casto]

I do not know what "screensavers" is or if that "Judge" was a federal one.

But here is the answer Section 117 of the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted in the Computer Software Copyright Amendments of 1980 in response to the recommendations of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works' (CONTU). Section 117 permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an additional copy of the program for purely archival purposes if all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful, or where the making of such a copy is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.  

That was the law that enabled you to do it in the first place.

The only change to this section from title I of the DMCA was that temporary copies in random access memory (RAM) are copies that are subject to the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction right

Now, I know that some states have superDCMA's but as I don't live in California nor do most of the people that come here, I could care less.

As far as the RIAA is concerned. I have not purchased a cd in 7 years. Nor do I have any downloaded music.  (Did download some Roy D Mercer a while back though.)

Excuse me for being picky here, but you can't justify your point with a 30 year old law. It was a federal judge btw.  If you don't know what the screensavers is then I feel for you, I really do as you are being denied techtv, the best cable channel ever.  Especially if you want to keep current with the DMCA and the RIAA's hyjinks.  

[Magnet_Eye]

It's part of the new modified DMCA which btw effects all forms of digital media, not just music.  As arcade pcbs didn't really have a eula it is illegal by default.

Uh....a PCB is not Digital Media. So it doesn't fall into the DMCA.

I personally think if I want to backup the roms from my Tempest arcade game, I can do so without violating any copyright law.

[hooded_paladin]

why oh why do we have this debate every week?

[rampy]

I do not know what "screensavers" is or if that "Judge" was a federal one.

But here is the answer Section 117 of the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted in the Computer Software Copyright Amendments of 1980 in response to the recommendations of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works' (CONTU). Section 117 permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an additional copy of the program for purely archival purposes if all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful, or where the making of such a copy is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.  

That was the law that enabled you to do it in the first place.

The only change to this section from title I of the DMCA was that temporary copies in random access memory (RAM) are copies that are subject to the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction right

Now, I know that some states have superDCMA's but as I don't live in California nor do most of the people that come here, I could care less.

As far as the RIAA is concerned. I have not purchased a cd in 7 years. Nor do I have any downloaded music.  (Did download some Roy D Mercer a while back though.)

Excuse me for being picky here, but you can't justify your point with a 30 year old law. It was a federal judge btw.  If you don't know what the screensavers is then I feel for you, I really do as you are being denied techtv, the best cable channel ever.  Especially if you want to keep current with the DMCA and the RIAA's hyjinks.  

Howard, I have to take you task a little bit... SPICE is the best cable channel ever. Hands Down... Skinimax and hoetime are 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Just to be contrary (it's what I do best  )

The age of the law doesn't change it's validity... It obviously needs to be redone/updated for this century without big corporate (cough, riaa , mpaa)  interests hooks in to the legislation... possibly to arrive at a happy medium of fair use yet still respecting intellectual property rights (if such a thing actually exists)

You can argue that, that specific law does not apply.  You can debate the letter of that law. But just because the law is 30 years old doesn't change it's validity ( certainly circumstances/technology 30 years later has changed the net effect - hence all the draconian add on's to the copyright/IP laws... )

*shrug*  IANAL  BIAABH (but i am a butt head)

=P

rampy