Game Emulators OK, Says U.S. Copyright Office

[mj147]

Not sure how new this information is but figured ill just link it :

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/747/747592p1.html

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5048

What I get from this is,  if the original equipment to run such software is no longer freely available, the its legal to use an emulator?

If this is old news pls link me to the correct threads as my initial search found nothing 


mj147

[shardian]

The emulator is ok, but the roms are still copyright protected. Doesn't do much legal good to have hardware emulation, but no legal roms to use it with (with a few exceptions, of course).

Still, it is a step in the right direction.

[Kaytrim]

Here is a link to the original publication on the U.S. Copyright Office website.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

This page has more discussion on the exempt classes.
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.html

The class that protects MAME is number 2.  I agree with shardian that the roms are not covered by this. 

[ahofle]

I'm certainly no expert, but it sounds like they are referring to the games (roms) to me.  Why else would the copyright owners be objecting to this request only in the case of old/obsolete games that are being rereleased in some way (console emulators, etc)?

" 2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

The Internet Archive, along with some supporting commenters, proposed an exemption that is identical to the classes of works exempted in the 2003 Rulemaking proceeding. There was no direct opposition to this request, apart from a concern by copyright owners that many old video games and computer programs are being reintroduced into the market in new ways by their copyright owners, who wished to exclude from the exemption video games that have been re–released on a new gaming platform because circumvention of access controls would cause significant harm to copyright owners in their exploitation of these re–released works. "

[Kaytrim]

That is why I pointed out the discussion on the exempt classes.  I wanted other opinions and views on the topic.  The exemption can be viewed from both sides and this could be a healthy discussion for this community.  If there is a lawyer in the community that could look this over and explain it better, it would be appreciated.

[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. 

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.     As far as I am concerned nothing has changed it is all just too confusing.

[Fozzy The Bear]

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. 

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]

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. 

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)

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]

Surely there are some roms out there that no legal entity owns the copyright for and would now be considered abondonware.

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.

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.

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)

[Xam]

I think what Leap is refering to is what is known as "Orphaned copyrights"
The owner of the copyright may not be known, but the copyright and all protections still exist for said copyright...it would therefore still be illegal to use or distribute the material unless you are authorized by the copyright owner.

I could be (and probably am) wrong.

Xam

[Fozzy The Bear]

I think what Leap is refering to is what is known as "Orphaned copyrights"
The owner of the copyright may not be known, but the copyright and all protections still exist for said copyright...it would therefore still be illegal to use or distribute the material unless you are authorized by the copyright owner.
I could be (and probably am) wrong.

No Xam... You're absolutely right.... The only time that the Copyright ceases to exist in the material, is when either the owner of those rights openly relinquishes them OR when the Legally Defined time limit on those Copyrights expires. To be blunt, before the Copyright time limit on the software we deal with expires, the vast majority of us will be dead.

This is partly why the ruling exists and what its purpose is. It allows the Library Of Congress to Archive the material before it becomes impossible to do so, for the education of future generations who will be able to use and view it freely. Much as you can now access and use Books and Documents and Films that the Library Of Congress archived from past generations.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

[leapinlew]

Would it allow owners of Capcom machines that have the cmos battery that expires to circumvent those technologies to keep their machines alive?

[Fozzy The Bear]

Would it allow owners of Capcom machines that have the cmos battery that expires to circumvent those technologies to keep their machines alive?

Technically no, because this ruling doesn't have that purpose. It simply isn't about that..... (unless the owner is:  a library or educational institution and only uses the machine for the purposes mentioned in the ruling).

However... It is possibly covered under Clause 3...
"3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."   If the item is a suicide battery, then the question is, does that make the circuit it is attached to a dongle.

In law there is nothing to prevent the owner of an original machine from repairing it so that it will continue to function. The function has not changed. The usage has not changed and there is no intention in fixing the machine, to breach Copyright. This action is covered under another section of the DMCA.

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

[spacies]

u's guys r way 2 cleva 4 me.
I dnt undastnd ne of it.

plz msg wen itz ok 2 use mame & romz 2getha

thnx

[SirPoonga]

Just so you know, this isn't a new law.  This was discussed here years ago.  Noticed it says for the next three years.  The three years of the previous one expired.  It's the same law but now they added the wireless part.  The clause you are discussion hasn't change from the last one.  Wonder if we could dredge up the old discussions.
It was made a huge deal on slashdot last time and mame.net got flooded with people cheering for their misinterpretation.

In summary of last time this came up:
It doesn't say anything that roms are legal.  All it is saying is that you can circumvent copy protection for software that runs on obsolete hardware.

In terms of mame it means the drivers that decrypt stuff for hardware that is obsolete is legal (in the US).

[Glaine]

This topic has been popping up more than CrapMame lately.
And Fozzy is the only one consistently setting people straight on this it seems.
Not flamming everyone else who throws in something everytime, I know a lot of you do.

But every one of these has been the same.
The first post is someone always assuming everything is legal now.
Then common sense steps in.
Like they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

My advise:
Stop worrying about "Legalizing it" and worry more about the moral implications. Buy the handfull of PCBs that you play on a daily basis at least. Maybe one day you'll get around to putting em in cabinets but until then you won't worry about playing them anymore. At least morraly.

Over N Out.

[RayB]

I agree with Fozzy's posts.

Now, let's also keep in mind that the MAME project is not based in the US, so DMCA doesn't apply (to them), so the whole discussion is pointless. Only international copyright conventions that their home country is a party to apply (for them). And of course, whatever THEIR laws say don't apply to americans either.

So, who wants to start up a non-profit Archival organization?