Main > Main Forum

Question about legalities of Roms

Pages: << < (5/9) > >>

daywane:


--- Quote from: Patent Doc on October 06, 2004, 09:30:03 pm ---
--- Quote ---(Hmmm ever notice you must agree with the license agreement to install, But if you do not agree with it ,you still can not take windows back to the store and get your money back. Because you opened it.)
--- End quote ---

NIce quirk of US contract law.  There are two contracts, .....  Your other option is to send it back to the manufacturer.  If you haven't installed, their contract with you forces them to refund your costs.  Of course avoiding the run around won't be easy.

--- End quote ---
I just never thought of that... I will try it some time . Hay Microsoft... give me back my money. ( I am not being a wise guy ) I think I will try it wiyh my next Microsoft product just for the grins of it. Bill Gates just TICKS me off.

shadowdrak:

I haven't read the license agreement in a while, but I remember at least a few said that they will refund your money if you send it back without installing it.  I was thinking about something though; I heard at one point that you could not agree to a contract you haven't read, nor can you sign something saying that you agree to one you haven't read.  How does that apply to the situations like on web pages, where they link to the agreement on a separate page?  If you don't click the link you can't agree to it right?  I guess I answered my own question.

Tiger-Heli:

>I thought Mame was ok to pass along for free.( I am not selling any >cabs) (nor plan to) When I got into emu's it was said emu's and >ROMs were fine to pass out just not on the same disk or disks.

MAME is okay to pass along for free.  It is a violation of the license agreement to distribute MAME along with the ROMS (on the same disk, especially), to distribute a MAME variant without the modified source code, to distribute a binary of MAME which has the "nag" screens disabled (even though the official one does now), or to make a profit from MAME (sellling it).

The issue in this case is whether including MAME along with a cab (which will hopefully make a profit) constitutes "profiting from MAME" (I think not, but it's just my opinion) and whether selling a cab with MAME could be viewed as enticement to download ROMS and therefore get MAME in trouble (no more than MAME already does, IMHO).

>Now the ROMs rules have changed but as far as I know not the rules >of Mame.

The ROMs rules have not changed.  ROMS are copyrighted.  It was never legal to download ROMS or give them away, etc.  It's just lately the RIAA, etc. has been going after the websites that used to have them.

>You can find many Mame arcades on ebay any day. All say no ROMs
>I thought this was ok?.

It is, AFIAK.

>Its the same as getting your ROMs from a burner . They are not >selling the ROMs , but just the cost of the disk.
>Even though there price is more than the disks, I figure the time >involved the price is still great.

Yes, it is the same and it's also a violation of the copyright.  None of the burners own 5,000 arcade PCBs.  Even if they did, the PCB's did not include a license to copy and provide the ROM images to anyone who sent them a DVD.  The only thing is the actual license holders are either out of business, or don't want to bother with trying to enforce their rights, and it's in all of our best interests not to give them a reason to.

In response to the initial question, I recommend the following:

Set MAME up on the Cab (if it isn't already).  Delete the contents of the ROM directory, but leave the artwork, samples, etc. etc.

Copy the MAME and front end directory to a CD and delete them from the arcade machine.

Now when you sell the machine - tell them to drag the data from this free CD to the HD and MAME will be set-up.  (They might have to re-install the front-end if it uses the registry and I would tell them how to do this.)

Then explain the ROM situation (the MP3 example is pretty good) and tell them how to find a MAME burner if they want to have the ROMS.

Also to the original poster - I don't think an arcade purchaser is going to sue you for selling them a machine with a full set of ROMS on it.  Neither do I think the MAME dev's legal department will come knocking on your door.  Namco isn't likely to come after you either, but Namco might try to shut down the MAME project if this is too simple for people.

'Nuff said.

Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: pmlabrier on October 04, 2004, 06:54:37 am ---What I am wondering is  it legit if you own another version of the game other than the original rom.   Say I provided new  versions of  Arcade Advanced , Namco Museum and MIDWAY GREATEST ARCADE HITS for the gameboy advanced.     Would that let me put the games included in those collections onto the mame cabnet following the spirit of the law if not the letter?  Would it at least give me a legitimate excuse?
Jjst trying to CMA,

--- End quote ---
Here's an fictituous analogy which might make this more clear to you.

RUSH produced a certain album which was never sold in the U.S.A. so (ignoring E-bay, etc.) I can't buy it, but I do have a friend with a copy of the CD.  I don't want to cheat RUSH out of the royalties, but I can't buy this particular item, so I buy the "Farewell to Kings" and "2112" CD's at the record store (in addition to the copies I already own), and then burn my friend's RUSH CD to my own CD-R so I can listen to it.

Did I violate RUSH's copyright on the import CD?  Yes.

Did I cheat RUSH out of some money?  Depends how you look at it.

Would a jury feel that even though I violated RUSH's copyright, I did do everything possible to ensure that they were not financially harmed by my actions?  Depends on the jury.

Now the problem with Arcade Roms is the situation is not nearly as cut and dried.  There was no actual copyright on the original item, so only someone's interpretation of intellectual property law applies.  Also in many cases the original game company went out of business, and the PC version was sold by someone like ActiVision who bought the rights (presumably) from whoever took over the original arcade company.  Whether buying from Activision increases the profits for the original company would depend on the terms of Acitvision's license agreement, which may be hard to discover.

FWIW.

danny_galaga:

i find it hard to believe that anyone can misinterpret the law regarding ROMS. it is very obviously a violation to own or distribute them if you do not own the rights to them. apparently if you own an original PCB you have a bit more of a case but that's academic since most people with MAME would not have any (or many) PCBS. even if you did there is no licence to distribute ROMS. i think people have doubts because they feel a little guilty. certainly on my part, i'm thinking of getting some starroms (who DO have a licence to sell atari roms for home use) so that i don't feel i've completely ripped anyone off. theyre cheap although they only have ATARI. and ive been looking out for some PCBS too, although in this case it doesnt help the original licensee.
so don't kid yourselves, it's not a 'grey' area in legal terms. the only thing that makes it 'grey' is the fact that the games industry aren't quite as anal about this as the record industry and so long as not too many  idiots blatantly sell them on ebay etc then it will stay that way...




Pages: << < (5/9) > >>

Go to full version