Main > Main Forum
Game Emulators OK, Says U.S. Copyright Office
Fozzy The Bear:
Kaytrim.... To qualify what I write here... I'm not a Lawyer, but I am trained in UK, EU, and US Copyright Law.
You are all pretty much, so far, missinterpreting this ruling by being extremely selective about what you are reading in it. You have missed several very critical points!
1) This ruling DOES NOT grant rights to Circumvent Copyright. It is only about the control of access via obsolete copy protection methods. It is NOT about freedom of, or exemption to Copyright in the material itself.
2) This ruling ONLY grants rights to circumvent obsolete protection schemes, in doing so it does NOT make the Copyright obsolete...and it only grants the rights under very specific circumstances as follows:
a) You musty be a library or formally recognised archive or educational institution.
Pretty much non of us are a Library or Archive or Educational institution under the recognised Legal Definition.
b) You must ONLY make non infringing use of the material and that use must be Archival, or under the terms of the ruling for very specified educational use.
Copying of ROM's IS NOT non infringing use of the material, distributing ROM's is most certainly NOT non infringing use of the material. Copying ROM's in order to play games is NOT non infringing use of the material, nor is it for the purpose of education as strictly specified in the ruling.
c) The copy and use STILL must not be in breach of the DMCA.
The DMCA is very specific... That is where you will find the terms and conditions for the actual application of copyright in the USA.
This ruling DOES NOT in any way alter the copyright in the material or deminish in any way the rights of the owners and licencees of the original work.
It is therefore of very little use to us whatsoever and does not really apply to us. Because as a legal document, you CAN NOT, read parts of the ruling in isolation and ignore the parts you don't like. They all form part of the ruling itself.
I did answer much of this in the two other threads that started on it. See:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=60599.0
Additionally.... This ruling DOES NOT protect Mame OR the Mame Devs or the guys who do the ROM dumping to add to the Mame Archive, because that very same Mame Archive is then distributed by the guys doing the ROM Dumping and that then means that they fall under the terms of the "non infringing use" clause..... That is to say that what they do by giving the dumped ROMs to someone else, is then NOT a non infringing use.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)
Kaytrim:
Thanks for the clarification Fozzy. However upon reading the other two threads regarding this ruling I am even more confused. :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=60467.0
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=60599.0
leapinlew and Patent Doc seem to have valid points to counter your arguments and vice versa. :dunno As far as I am concerned nothing has changed it is all just too :censored: confusing.
Fozzy The Bear:
--- Quote from: Kaytrim on December 05, 2006, 05:41:59 pm ---Thanks for the clarification Fozzy. However upon reading the other two threads regarding this ruling I am even more confused.leapinlew and Patent Doc seem to have valid points to counter your arguments and vice versa.
--- End quote ---
OK......The thing to bear in mind, and in this case it is very important. Is that you can not read only a single part or clause of a Legal Ruling and ignore the other parts of it.
That particular ruling sets out very specific terms and conditions as to when it can be applied. they are:
It permits circumvention of protection only if:
You are a Library Or Archive or Educational Institution
and
Your purpose is Archival or specifically Educational (as described in the Ruling)
and
The use you put the material to, does not infringe Copyright in any way. (specifically does not breach the terms of the DMCA)
You can't just fit into one of those catagorys... in order for that ruling to apply, you MUST fit into ALL of them.
I hope that clarifies it for you.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)
leapinlew:
--- Quote from: Fozzy The Bear on December 05, 2006, 06:27:35 pm ---
--- Quote from: Kaytrim on December 05, 2006, 05:41:59 pm ---Thanks for the clarification Fozzy. However upon reading the other two threads regarding this ruling I am even more confused.leapinlew and Patent Doc seem to have valid points to counter your arguments and vice versa.
--- End quote ---
OK......The thing to bear in mind, and in this case it is very important. Is that you can not read only a single part or clause of a Legal Ruling and ignore the other parts of it.
That particular ruling sets out very specific terms and conditions as to when it can be applied. they are:
It permits circumvention of protection only if:
You are a Library Or Archive or Educational Institution
and
Your purpose is Archival or specifically Educational (as described in the Ruling)
and
The use you put the material to, does not infringe Copyright in any way. (specifically does not breach the terms of the DMCA)
You can't just fit into one of those catagorys... in order for that ruling to apply, you MUST fit into ALL of them.
I hope that clarifies it for you.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)
--- End quote ---
Not that I totally disagree with Fozzy, but I feel the new ruling is open enough that it can be interpreted in a way that would be friendly towards both emulators and roms.
A library can be defined and interpreted as many different ways - so can archival. Those are easily circumvented.
Copyright however is more solid from a legal standpoint. You cannot disregard a copyright because a video game is no longer manufactured. However, the state of copyrights is horrible. Surely there are some roms out there that no legal entity owns the copyright for and would now be considered abondonware.
I just think it makes the gray area that we live in a lighter shade of gray. Fozzy seems to think it has NO bearing on our hobby and I totally disagree. For example, it definetly makes Mame legit. It would also allow us to legally circumvent those Capcom games that die when the battery dies. So, it does affect us somewhat.
Fozzy The Bear:
--- Quote from: leapinlew on December 05, 2006, 06:57:05 pm ---Surely there are some roms out there that no legal entity owns the copyright for and would now be considered abondonware.
--- End quote ---
Your real difficulty there Lew, is that in Law there is NO definition of Abandonware. It simply doesn't exist as far as Law and Statute is concerned. and as I said to you in the other thread (forgive me for quoting it again but I think it clarifies why abandonware is a non entity):
Look at it this way..... Lets say you're walking down the street, and you see a parked car that has been sitting there for a couple of years (apparently Abandoned). You think to yourself "Hmmmm I like the look of that car, I think I want it" you ask around and nobody you ask seems to know who owns it. So you get in, start it up and drive it away!.... just as you do that, the owner of the car looks out of his top floor window and sees his car being taken. How long is it then before there's a State Trooper on your tail???...... get the point?? even if you don't know who owns something, or it looks like the owner may not be interested in it, it doesn't make it "Legally" OK to help yourself to it.
So unless the copyright owner actually puts the software into the public domain as a good will gesture and relinquishes their rights to it..... as is the case with a couple of the Mame ROMs. Then you really can't just (Legally anyway) take them and use them as you see fit.
--- Quote from: leapinlew on December 05, 2006, 06:57:05 pm ---I feel the new ruling is open enough that it can be interpreted in a way that would be friendly towards both emulators and roms.
--- End quote ---
The only intention of this Ruling... Is to allow the Library Of Congress (other recognised Libraries) and Educational Institutions, to remove the protection on software so that they can archive it. And that is very specifically how it would be interpreted by a Court Of Law who would rule on the intention.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)