ROM legality and dumping (mame - beatmania)

[my58vw]

Hello all,

I currently own a beatmania machine with 10 of the 13 mixes (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, Complete Mix, Complete Mix 2, Dreams Come True, The Final). I inquired about ripping the HDDs but found out that I would have to send out the kits to have them dumped. Now mame has all the mixes (except club, 7th, and the final). Here is the question. Since I have the final and 7th Mix I am trying to get someone to dump them for me so they can be in mame, but don't know who to go to. The real question though is legality.

I am moving to an apartment, and leaving the machine at my parents place (I go there on the weekends). I want to build a tabletop beatmania machine, but using mame instead of one of my extra boards. The question is, am I legal to run the roms in my tabletop if I own the actual arcade hardware?

Thanks again!

[ark_ader]

Yep.

[DeLuSioNal29]

A wholehearted yes.

Technically, if you run any MAME game you should own the original hardware.

[my58vw]

Great - thank You!!!

Now to start the project!!

Does anyone know who can dump the hdds for me?

[saint]

The answer to that question is not yes. It's not necessarily no. As far as I know the question has never been legally defined nor addressed by the courts. You likely have a legal right to backup media you own (and arcade boards and their contents could arguably be considered media). However, I've not seen that right defined or expanded to include making a copy for use in different hardware.

Now - morally I think you're fine, assuming only one copy of the material will be in use at one time with the same owner. Legally however, I don't think there is any clear answer.

--- saint

[Turnarcades]

It's one of those grey areas that have evolved over the years. When you buy a game, you only buy the licence to own and use one game. I think in the past you had the right to backup your own media and to re-use in it's original context in the event of failure (ie, re-flashing chips that have been damaged on an original PCB). However, if you notice the footnotes on most media these days, (CD's, DVD's, Music etc.), most of them say "unauthorised lending, distribution or duplication of the copyright material is prohibited", whereas a lot just use to read "illegal borrowing, duplication or broadcasting is prosecutable".

Make of this what you will. Personally I take it to mean that they are acknowledging new methods of supposed piracy, but are not protected officially against it, so instead only hint at the grey area of modern duplication methods and possible consequences.

But that's just me......

[Jdurg]

The answer to that question is not yes. It's not necessarily no. As far as I know the question has never been legally defined nor addressed by the courts. You likely have a legal right to backup media you own (and arcade boards and their contents could arguably be considered media). However, I've not seen that right defined or expanded to include making a copy for use in different hardware.

Now - morally I think you're fine, assuming only one copy of the material will be in use at one time with the same owner. Legally however, I don't think there is any clear answer.

--- saint

I'm not going to post it here since it takes a good few hours to read through every part of the DMCA, but techincally it is illegal to make a copy of your software and run it on a different machine.  You are allowed to make backups and that is not being questioned.  The backup is only legally able to be used if the original hardware is no longer operable and can not be replaced without any extraneous efforts.  E.G. if you have an arcade PCB that uses parts which are no longer in existance and you therefore can't replace the broken parts without going through extreme efforts, you are allowed to use your backup on a different machine in order to play it.

If you copy a hard drive image from an arcade game and then play it on a computer even though the arcade game is still working, then you "technically" are braking the law. 

Now, as has been pointed out MANY times before, the actual legality of this has never truly been defined.  Mostly because companies will never know if you back up something you own and use it on a different machine.

Also, the idea that you can legally play your own ROMs that you've dumped from your PCBs is not exactly true according to the DMCA.  The reason is that the PCBs still work and therefore you can play the games on your PCB AND your computer at the same time, even though you only purchased the "rights" to one copy of those games.  By making a back-up and playing that as well, you are technically using "two" copies of the game even though you only paid for one. 

AGAIN, this is all the legal mumbo-jumbo according to the DMCA.  In reality, you're not going to wind up in jail for making a back-up of your HDD and using it on your computer unless you advertise it in a local newspaper and start charging people to use it.   

[johnperkins21]

I'm not going to post it here since it takes a good few hours to read through every part of the DMCA, but techincally it is illegal to make a copy of your software and run it on a different machine.  You are allowed to make backups and that is not being questioned.  The backup is only legally able to be used if the original hardware is no longer operable and can not be replaced without any extraneous efforts.  E.G. if you have an arcade PCB that uses parts which are no longer in existance and you therefore can't replace the broken parts without going through extreme efforts, you are allowed to use your backup on a different machine in order to play it.

You're actually misrepresenting the DMCA. In the US at least, we all have the right to make backup copies of our software. What the DMCA says is that we can not circumvent the copy protections implemented to do so. If there is no copy protection that keeps you from simply making a backup, then you're in the clear. Now I don't know what sort of methods are used to make a dump of the ROM, but if you're not circumventing the copy protection you're in the clear to make a backup.

As far as the rest of your statement is concerned you're absolutely right. There's really no precedent to say what is and isn't legal in this case. More than likely, it would illegal for you to play your ROMs on any hardware other than the original, but as long as you aren't distributing it and are only using it for your private use, you can use it with a clear conscience.

[ark_ader]

I'm not going to post it here since it takes a good few hours to read through every part of the DMCA, but techincally it is illegal to make a copy of your software and run it on a different machine.  You are allowed to make backups and that is not being questioned.  The backup is only legally able to be used if the original hardware is no longer operable and can not be replaced without any extraneous efforts.  E.G. if you have an arcade PCB that uses parts which are no longer in existance and you therefore can't replace the broken parts without going through extreme efforts, you are allowed to use your backup on a different machine in order to play it.

You're actually misrepresenting the DMCA. In the US at least, we all have the right to make backup copies of our software. What the DMCA says is that we can not circumvent the copy protections implemented to do so. If there is no copy protection that keeps you from simply making a backup, then you're in the clear. Now I don't know what sort of methods are used to make a dump of the ROM, but if you're not circumventing the copy protection you're in the clear to make a backup.

As far as the rest of your statement is concerned you're absolutely right. There's really no precedent to say what is and isn't legal in this case. More than likely, it would illegal for you to play your ROMs on any hardware other than the original, but as long as you aren't distributing it and are only using it for your private use, you can use it with a clear conscience.

I agree its kak.  If you OWN the original hardware and you cannot go back to the original manufacturers to obtain a copy of the software regardless of media, you are allowed to use the copy from another source, as long as you can verify that you own the original game, boards etc.

This is more a civil court argument from the original manufacturers or copyright owner position, than a legal argument leading to piracy.

This is very different to others claiming to have the right to use mame sets, who used to have the original boards. 

While we are on the subject - how does the roms get passed onto the public in the first place?

I have a XDA Orbit Pocket PC.  My rom data gets corrupted.  My phone doesn't work.  My insurance is out and I own the phone.  I can download the ROM OS from O2 and get my phone working again.  Am I breaking the DMCA for doing this?  Nope.   Same thing.

[SavannahLion]

Nintendo(?) did argue in court that the legal backup issue in copyrights related to media that were considered volatile at the time. In other words, floppy disks necessitated backups whereas solid state cartridges did not. That precedence could be leveraged to argue that solid state circuitry, disc media, and hard drives are considered non-volatile media. I suppose this precedence could possibly be discarded if it's proven to the courts that such media is volatile but over a longer period of time.

[my58vw]

The interesting thing here is that you can not go an get the original hardware anymore, it is only avalable through the used marketplace. You could not even get them imported if they made them, because the kits in question were designed to be for home use only. I could never think of using a rom in a money making environment.

[johnperkins21]

Nintendo(?) did argue in court that the legal backup issue in copyrights related to media that were considered volatile at the time. In other words, floppy disks necessitated backups whereas solid state cartridges did not. That precedence could be leveraged to argue that solid state circuitry, disc media, and hard drives are considered non-volatile media. I suppose this precedence could possibly be discarded if it's proven to the courts that such media is volatile but over a longer period of time.

It's a very tricky situation, and one the courts generally rule in favor of the corporations for. However, the DMCA does not prohibit creating a backup, and the Betamax Doctrine makes it possible to create legal backups. Each infraction that doesn't fall directly within the two (i.e. EULA strictly prohibits backups) would need to be handled on a case by case basis in civil court.

Until a case actually goes to trial and a judge hands out a ruling, all we have is guesses based on copyright law, the DMCA and the Betamax Doctrine. Even once a case comes out all that we'll probably get is precedent and depending on the circumstances that may not help either.

The way I'd look at it is this:
Make a backup copy for yourself = legal (almost zero chance of getting caught too)
Distribute backup copy to others = copyright infringement
Circumvent copy protection = illegal

[johnperkins21]

The interesting thing here is that you can not go an get the original hardware anymore, it is only avalable through the used marketplace. You could not even get them imported if they made them, because the kits in question were designed to be for home use only. I could never think of using a rom in a money making environment.

No, but the problem is that someone out there still holds the copyright. There was a while there while the lack of companies making money on the products gave us a little more wiggle room (not much, but some). Now with things like XBOX Live Arcade, Virtual Console, and other revenue streams, the copyright holders are looking at other ways to continue making money off of their products. At some point they'll fall into the public domain, but as we've seen the courts do many times (just look at Mickey Mouse, should have hit public domain eons ago), they'll side with the corporations almost every time. Heck, even the Betamax Doctrine was a win for Sony more than the consumer at the time.

[SavannahLion]

It's a very tricky situation, and one the courts generally rule in favor of the corporations for. However, the DMCA does not prohibit creating a backup, and the Betamax Doctrine makes it possible to create legal backups. Each infraction that doesn't fall directly within the two (i.e. EULA strictly prohibits backups) would need to be handled on a case by case basis in civil court.

Betamax doctorine protects the existence of said machines/devices that could potentially be used to make backups, not the specific act of the backup.

[Jdurg]

The interesting thing here is that you can not go an get the original hardware anymore, it is only avalable through the used marketplace. You could not even get them imported if they made them, because the kits in question were designed to be for home use only. I could never think of using a rom in a money making environment.

Heh.  But there are many Korean and Chinese, and even American individuals who think otherwise.  Take a look at all the 48-in-1 and 1000-in-1 arcade PCBs out there.  They are simply a whole slew of ROMs burned onto a board with an emulator in there.  Their goal is to make money off of those ROM images.  Any multi-game PCB that doesn't have the explicit consent of the original manufacturers of those games is technically illegal.

[johnperkins21]

It's a very tricky situation, and one the courts generally rule in favor of the corporations for. However, the DMCA does not prohibit creating a backup, and the Betamax Doctrine makes it possible to create legal backups. Each infraction that doesn't fall directly within the two (i.e. EULA strictly prohibits backups) would need to be handled on a case by case basis in civil court.

Betamax doctorine protects the existence of said machines/devices that could potentially be used to make backups, not the specific act of the backup.

For the most part you're absolutely correct, but there's still this:

(3) In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm.

You generally have to prove some sort of damages in copyright. What the court did here is to say that scenarios do exist where consumers creating a backup copy of a copyrighted work is, and should be, allowed. It doesn't specifically state "every consumer has a right to make a backup," but it does infer that it is ok in some instances and it's up to the copyright holder to prove damages otherwise.

You're more correct than I am as it's been a while since I've read much of it, but it certainly does more than just allow the manufacture of devices. The court's opinion is important in that it actually created limits on copyright protection. And this is a point directly related to our topic:

(12) Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [p*426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for ‘plaintiff’s original work.‘" Ibid.

Making a backup of software you've already paid for does not reduce the market for the original work. Again, it's tricky and attorneys make tons of money and spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out exactly what the courts intended. This is why most of these things come down to a case-by-case basis, and you're highly unlikely to be taken to court for creating your own personal backup. What the copyright holders are trying to prevent (and willing to pay attorneys for) is the unlawful distribution of their content. They usuall don't care if you paid for it and want to make a backup for yourself as long as you are sticking to the other terms of the EULA (i.e. don't share, only use one copy at a time, etc.)

Here's a link to the full text that I used:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm

[mameupdate]

There are quite a few websites on the internet that sell roms, Some have been open for over 6+ years and noone seems to pull them or sue them.. I think roms are generally overlooked.

[Green Giant]

There are quite a few websites on the internet that sell roms, Some have been open for over 6+ years and noone seems to pull them or sue them.. I think roms are generally overlooked.

All of those roms are old.  If they sold PS2 or xbox roms, they would get shutdown in a day.  If you have a copy of Zelda and it breaks, you can try to contact the orignial manufacturer about a replacement.  They will laugh at you.  The DMCA protects you if the original is not readily available, and used copies don't count.

[mameupdate]

There are quite a few websites on the internet that sell roms, Some have been open for over 6+ years and noone seems to pull them or sue them.. I think roms are generally overlooked.

All of those roms are old.  If they sold PS2 or xbox roms, they would get shutdown in a day.  If you have a copy of Zelda and it breaks, you can try to contact the orignial manufacturer about a replacement.  They will laugh at you.  The DMCA protects you if the original is not readily available, and used copies don't count.

Yea there old but so is beatmania, meaning why do people always question the legality here for mame roms when in theory no higher power seems to care anyway unless like you said its next gen games that are at the store.

[ark_ader]

There are quite a few websites on the internet that sell roms, Some have been open for over 6+ years and noone seems to pull them or sue them.. I think roms are generally overlooked.

All of those roms are old.  If they sold PS2 or xbox roms, they would get shutdown in a day.  If you have a copy of Zelda and it breaks, you can try to contact the orignial manufacturer about a replacement.  They will laugh at you.  The DMCA protects you if the original is not readily available, and used copies don't count.

Yea there old but so is beatmania, meaning why do people always question the legality here for mame roms when in theory no higher power seems to care anyway unless like you said its next gen games that are at the store.

Hold on a second,

Look at the original post and then compare the answers to the previous posts in this thread, and you can see the direction it is going.  We are not talking about using the copyright like in MAME roms and the arcade cabs of the world or 1000 in 1 mainboards.  We are discussing the fact that an original betmania is missing code, and the software available on the net can restore an original machine with that code.

The argument of DMCA, abandonware or if companies don't go after you for stealing their work, is moot in this case.  I think we are muddying up the waters, which should really be easy to answer. 

Besides we are all past the point of no going back if you have the full romset of any Mame distribution, especially if the Feds walk in. 

I'm waiting on an episode of Law and Order featuring this argument. 

It'll put a shiver down your back!

[johnperkins21]

I'm waiting on an episode of Law and Order featuring this argument. 

It'll put a shiver down your back!

I don't watch that show, but don't they focus on state criminal prosecution? Most of these cases would fall under civil or federal prosecution. In any case, we definitely don't want more attention brought to it as it would indeed send a shiver down my spine.

[CrazyKongFan]

Heh.  But there are many Korean and Chinese, and even American individuals who think otherwise.  Take a look at all the 48-in-1 and 1000-in-1 arcade PCBs out there.  They are simply a whole slew of ROMs burned onto a board with an emulator in there.  Their goal is to make money off of those ROM images.  Any multi-game PCB that doesn't have the explicit consent of the original manufacturers of those games is technically illegal.

The local (new!) arcade has one of these 48-in-1 machines (in an old Ms Pac cabinet), and I noticed while playing a few games, they've removed the copyright notices on the ROM's, so, for example Donkey Kong just says "1981" on the title screen instead of having the Nintendo name with it.