wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!rom sets for sale?

[CheffoJeffo]

hasn't anyone on here been to any kind of scifi convention before?

Maybe this isn't the hotbed of geekdom that you think it is ?

 

[Neverending Project]

I think many also miss the point that even if you own the game, it is illegal to possess a copy of that game. It has been brought up that since nobody owns every game out there, that nobody has the right to own the entire rom set. While this is true, it is also true that nobody has the right to copy any rom (except for roms published as free, or where their copyright has expired).

If you buy a CD, you are not entitled to make or buy a copy of it. If you buy a DVD or computer game, you aren't entitled to copy it. You are not entitled to make a photocopy of all the books you own any more that you are allowed to possess a copied version of a published book. Hell, you can't even make a clone of yourself, let alone the people that you own.

Morality is an entirely other topic, however.

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm trying to decide if you were making an attempt at humour or not ... I'm going to proceed as if you are serious and perhaps a bit myopic, since you chose not to employ any emoticons.

I think many also miss the point that even if you own the game, it is illegal to possess a copy of that game.

It is legal where I live and I believe it is legal in the USA, except that you can't circumvent copy protection on non-obsolete systems. Perhaps someone, preferably with expertise, can clarify.

While this is true, it is also true that nobody has the right to copy any rom (except for roms published as free, or where their copyright has expired).

I would also disagree with this as per above.

If you buy a CD, you are not entitled to make or buy a copy of it.

I most certainly can and I believe that you nice folks in the USA can as well based on the principle of Fair Use. Otherwise all software that facilitates ripping/burning CDs would be illegal. If I were Steve Jobs, I would be REALLY pissed at Apple's lawyers!

If you buy a DVD or computer game, you aren't entitled to copy it.

I believe that I am and believe that folks in the USA are as well, subject to the above-noted conditions.

CAVEAT: I live in Canada and IANAL.

[RandyT]

One question if someone has a conversioe (i.e. strider for c64) can we say that the right to play other verssions of it are included also?

No. There's no legal basis for that. Also, often times one version is done by a company who has licensed the rights to do so from the original copyright holder, but are not themselves the original copyright holders. Owning version "a" of a game does not give you the legal right to use version "b" of the game you don't own.

IANAL, but I have always thought this one to be an interesting legal puzzle.  I would agree that owning a copy of Donkey Kong made for the ColecoVision would definitely not entitle one to play a version of Donkey Kong for the Genesis, as the companies / individuals producing the game versions are different and entirely unrelated.  But it starts to feel a little fuzzier when looking at whether one would be entitled to play the original game from which those titles were licensed.  A portion of the proceeds for each licensed game you purchased were paid to the company who produced the original game.  Perhaps not directly, but they were definitely compensated for your use of the title.  In the case where one has purchased the same titles for multiple systems, that compensation is even greater. 

From a strictly legal standpoint, I don't believe this would save you.  But from a moral standpoint, there's certainly something there that is worth considering.

RandyT

[saint]

also, and i'm not taking sides here just an observation; hasn't anyone on here been to any kind of scifi convention before? they are hotbeds of movies (new and old) pirates and anime and any tv shows you can think of always have been, before the internets you had to goto a Con to score stuff most would get from bittorrents now. again i'm not taking any sides just observing. i do think the guy claiming to have written the programs is bunk, but ive heard worse smack at Cons before.

my measly 2 cents

Every major con I've been to in the last 5 years or so (and we go to several a year) has had that stuff shut down when it was found, and for the most part it hasn't been found. Back in the day I'm sure it was different.

[saint]

thanks for pointing that out. but if i use images of the software that i own on the emulation of the machine that runs it is "bullet proof" legal right? (Taking for granted that i even got the machine but it may be broken or dead)

No. Until cases are brought to court and precedent set, it is certainly not bullet proof legal. Even after precedents are set they're occasionally changed over time, so I don't believe bullet proof legal is possible. However, for practical purposes, I believe the second best legal ground you can be on when using a ROM in an emulator is to have the original media (for instance, having a C=64 ROM on your computer with the original C=64 diskettes sitting in a drawer, or having an original PCB for an arcade game that's not working whle using the ROM in a cabinet with an emulator). IANAL.  The first best of course would be to actually own the legal rights to use the ROM. For instance, when StarROM's was around I bought every ROM in their catalog, including one or two ROMs for arcade machines I actually own outright.

[saint]

I think many also miss the point that even if you own the game, it is illegal to possess a copy of that game. It has been brought up that since nobody owns every game out there, that nobody has the right to own the entire rom set. While this is true, it is also true that nobody has the right to copy any rom (except for roms published as free, or where their copyright has expired).

If you buy a CD, you are not entitled to make or buy a copy of it. If you buy a DVD or computer game, you aren't entitled to copy it. You are not entitled to make a photocopy of all the books you own any more that you are allowed to possess a copied version of a published book. Hell, you can't even make a clone of yourself, let alone the people that you own.

Morality is an entirely other topic, however.

I concur with everything CheffoJeffo said regarding this. It is my understanding you have the legal right to backup media you own.

[Faramir]

I think it's funny that most sites that distribute ROMs through bittorrent or otherwise bother to put up a disclaimer stating something like: "In order to download these ROMs you must own a physical copy".  Do they really think that disclaimer is any protection for them?

It seems to be accepted (here and elsewhere) that owning a physical copy of a game entitles you to possessing the ROM.  Is that really the case?  Most people say it falls under fair use, but is there any history of this standing up in court (for DVDs or Music)? This is at least a gray area, as organizations like the RIAA & MPAA claim making any copy of their copyrighted material is "stealing".  Of course, having a 6yo boy who tends to ruin DVDs, I definitely think it should be allowed.

IMO copyright laws are ridiculous.  They are mostly unenforceable, and in the case of old ROMs they are protecting no one. 

Legally I don't think there is any distinction between selling ROMs & distributing them through bittorrent.  Of course selling them brings more attention, which may (however unlikely) cause legal action.  Morally, I dislike anyone making profit from someones ignorance.  That bothers me more than any copyright issues he is violating.

[CheffoJeffo]

It seems to be accepted (here and elsewhere) that owning a physical copy of a game entitles you to possessing the ROM.  Is that really the case?  Most people say it falls under fair use, but is there any history of this standing up in court (for DVDs or Music)? This is at least a gray area, as organizations like the RIAA & MPAA claim making any copy of their copyrighted material is "stealing".  Of course, having a 6yo boy who tends to ruin DVDs, I definitely think it should be allowed.

To my mind, there are a few issues here.

With respect to possessing a ROM image -- I do believe that you can possess a copy, if you own the board, subject to the copy-protection-circumvention provisions in the DMCA.

Can you then legally use those images to play the game on an emulator ? That, I think is the untested gray area.

As far as copying music from CDs, if this was actually illegal, I would have expected folks like the MPAA RIAA to file actions against folks like, say, Apple Computer (since the ripping ability of iTunes would then be illegal).

In terms of copying protected DVDs, my understanding is that it is illegal in the USA since you have to circumvent the copy protection in order to make a copy. Last I checked, that does not apply to me here in Canada. I have 2 children with Autism who do not always take good care of their DVDs --the very first thing I do with any newly-purchased DVD is to make a pair of backup copies.

[MaximRecoil]

As far as copying music from CDs, if this was actually illegal, I would have expected folks like the MPAA to file actions against folks like, say, Apple Computer (since the ripping ability of iTunes would then be illegal).

Not necessarily. Not all audio CD's are copyrighted. For example, I could make a CD of myself whistling Dixie and place it in the public domain. Anyone could rip/copy/do whatever they wanted with it, legally. There is actually quite a bit of independent, non-copyrighted music floating around out there; particularly from people who use the internet file sharing as a free distribution/publicity/get noticed channel. YouTube has a ton of non-copyrighted video and audio as well.

With that said, I do believe it is legal in the U.S. to make a copy of any audio CD you own, for personal use ("fair use"), due to the fact that there are no copy-protection mechanisms in place on an audio CD that you would have to circumvent in order to make a copy.

[CheffoJeffo]

Good point ... I shouldn't have missed that.

OTOH, I wouldn't expect the RIAA to make the distinction either and would expect them to file suit anyway ... 

[Patent Doc]

Not necessarily. Not all audio CD's are copyrighted. For example, I could make a CD of myself whistling Dixie and place it in the public domain. Anyone could rip/copy/do whatever they wanted with it, legally. There is actually quite a bit of independent, non-copyrighted music floating around out there; particularly from people who use the internet file sharing as a free distribution/publicity/get noticed channel. YouTube has a ton of non-copyrighted video and audio as well.

MaximRecoil

Nope you are wrong.  ALL CD's are copyrighted, just not all have registrations.  The distinction is works that are registered versus those that aren't.  Once the work is fixed in a tangible medium it has copyright.  No registration required.  This could be personal letters to your grandmother, you whistling Dixie, whatever...so long as the expression is fixed copyright is there.  This would apply to the Youtube stuff too.  As I recall, youtube had an agreement with some of the major music companies to either remove videos or pay for the right to leave them up (I could be wrong about that, but that's what I remember).  

[MaximRecoil]

Not necessarily. Not all audio CD's are copyrighted. For example, I could make a CD of myself whistling Dixie and place it in the public domain. Anyone could rip/copy/do whatever they wanted with it, legally. There is actually quite a bit of independent, non-copyrighted music floating around out there; particularly from people who use the internet file sharing as a free distribution/publicity/get noticed channel. YouTube has a ton of non-copyrighted video and audio as well.

MaximRecoil

Nope you are wrong.  ALL CD's are copyrighted, just not all have registrations.  The distinction is works that are registered versus those that aren't.  Once the work is fixed in a tangible medium it has copyright.  No registration required.  This could be personal letters to your grandmother, you whistling Dixie, whatever...so long as the expression is fixed copyright is there.  This would apply to the Youtube stuff too.

LOL. I had a feeling someone would bring that up. But then I tried thinking of a word other than "non-copyrighted" and nothing came to mind. Then I decided, "Screw it, everyone knows what I'm talking about, especially since I specifically mentioned placing it into the public domain."

In other words, pretty much everyone is aware of what you are talking about, and also, pretty much no-one cares when it comes to using the word "copyright" in everyday language.

As I recall, youtube had an agreement with some of the major music companies to either remove videos or pay for the right to leave them up (I could be wrong about that, but that's what I remember).

I wasn't talking about copyrighted music (and yes, I'm using the word "copyright" in the common-speak sense, and will continue to do so from here on out). 

[ChadTower]

Everyone here has full sets of Roms...........Don't tell me you are Legally entitled to own and play every game.......Get off your high horse.

That's not true.  Some of us do not have MAME cabs and don't use emulators.

[Neverending Project]

I think many also miss the point that even if you own the game, it is illegal to possess a copy of that game. It has been brought up that since nobody owns every game out there, that nobody has the right to own the entire rom set. While this is true, it is also true that nobody has the right to copy any rom (except for roms published as free, or where their copyright has expired).

If you buy a CD, you are not entitled to make or buy a copy of it. If you buy a DVD or computer game, you aren't entitled to copy it. You are not entitled to make a photocopy of all the books you own any more that you are allowed to possess a copied version of a published book. Hell, you can't even make a clone of yourself, let alone the people that you own.

Morality is an entirely other topic, however.

I concur with everything CheffoJeffo said regarding this. It is my understanding you have the legal right to backup media you own.

This is true, and I misspoke for CDs. Making a copy for your own use does fall under fair use for music in the US. But making a backup copy of a DVD however, does circumvent the copy protection and is illegal. The DCMA states that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Many claim that it falls under the umbrella of Fair Use, but Title 17, Section 107 of the U.S. Code, states that using copyrighted works "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement." This doesn't really apply to DVD copying. Most people will go ahead and back-up their own DVD media, knowing that prosecution for such an innocuous breach would be a bit futile (hence an issue of morality). I guess a technicality is that you may make a copy of the DVD for your own personal use, but you can't break the encrytion (CSS) to do so, hence it is technically impossible.

Software still falls under the protection of the DCMA unless it is on a form of media that has become obsolete, or requires a dongle that has become obsolete. I think that making a copy of a copyright ROM is considered making a copy of a software program, and is hence illegal.

[CheffoJeffo]

Software still falls under the protection of the DCMA unless it is on a form of media that has become obsolete, or requires a dongle that has become obsolete. I think that making a copy of a copyright ROM is considered making a copy of a software program, and is hence illegal.

Audio media also falls under the purview of the DCMA ... is there a special section for software that I am unaware of ?

[Neverending Project]

Software still falls under the protection of the DCMA unless it is on a form of media that has become obsolete, or requires a dongle that has become obsolete. I think that making a copy of a copyright ROM is considered making a copy of a software program, and is hence illegal.

Audio media also falls under the purview of the DCMA ... is there a special section for software that I am unaware of ?

The current "Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works" (exemptions from Title 17, section 1201) were approved in November 2006 (and re-assessed every 3 years) and include software as stated above. (link here)

[CheffoJeffo]

Right ....

BUT my understanding is that the section you refer to has to do with circumventing copy protection, not copying unprotected files.

The point I made about audio media being covered by the DCMA is that you are not allowed to copy a CD with copy-protection under the terms of the DCMA.

Perhaps I am confused, but to my mind, you are interchanging the terms "circumvention" and "copying". From my point of view, this is very important and is why I made the specific statements that I have about copying and circumvention.

I will absolutely agree that, under the DCMA, you aren't allowed to circumvent copy-protection on software in order to make copies (e.g. encrypted ROM sets). That, however, is very different from it being illegal to make copies of non-copy-protected software (non-encrypted ROM sets).

I'm not trying to be pedantic (like I have to try!) -- it's just that what you have been saying is very different from my understanding.

EDIT: For grammar and to acknowledge that there are circumstances where it is allowable to circumvent copy protection.

[RayB]

Everyone here has full sets of Roms...........Don't tell me you are Legally entitled to own and play every game.......Get off your high horse.

That's not a fair statement.

[Neverending Project]

Hmm... I just went back and read through some of the DCMA text - it defines the subject matter of copyright material as,

"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

Which I understood to include a software program as a work. But when it lists categories included:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

It does not include a category describing software.

Although later, there is a section excluding certain software from copyright circumvention.

So maybe I'm I guess I'm confused.

[CheffoJeffo]

Although later, there is a section excluding certain software from copyright circumvention.

My understanding is that circumvention applies to bypassing copy protection (technical measures that prevent making copies) and has nothing to do with actual copyrights.  The anti-circumvention provisions in the DCMA simply makes it illegal for you nice folks in the USA to make copies where you otherwise would be allowed to (e.g. for backups).

Further, I don't think that the act of making a copy violates a copyright (but I stand to be corrected) -- a subsequent act (e.g. distribution or unauthorized usage) would be required for there to be a violation.

Just my understanding.

[RayB]

well Jeff, that's part of the big ongoing debates. Big Business would like even the ACT of a copy to be considered infringing, while consumers opinions are on the complete opposite end of that.

I don't know if the law considers intent at all (the same way criminal law takes intent into consideration). It probably should.

As it stands, there is much hypocrisy and double standards. If you post a Pepsi commercial to Youtube, it is copyright infringement, but because the big business behind that commercial WANTS as many viewers as possible, they aren't going to care, and are not going to enforce the law.

[Thy]

The argument about copyright and music has been going on for years, all the way back to tapping mix tapes off the radio. There's a very thin line, and I doubt any company is going to raid somebodies house because they ripped a few cd's to make a mix/mp3 cd for their car for example, however if that mix cd was to be distributed, then perhaps they would.

Same goes for taping tv shows etc.

[Dartful Dodger]

The people that design/program those products sell those products so they can make money to buy food and clothes for their families.

Bootleg copies cause the people who created those products to starve or freeze to death.

Putting a commercial on You Tube takes money away from the networks that sell advertising.

This is why the majority of people in the entertainment industry are so skinny and wear such skimpy clothing, they can't afford anything more.

[ahofle]

If it makes any of you feel better about stealing music from evil corporations, RCA stole my arcade ambience sounds for Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" video. 

Her video (first 10-15 seconds):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQ25-glGRzI

The 1983 'sample' track they used without permission:
http://arcade.hofle.com/arcade/arcade83sample.mp3

[Havok]

Everyone here has full sets of Roms...........Don't tell me you are Legally entitled to own and play every game.......Get off your high horse.

That's not true.  Some of us do not have MAME cabs and don't use emulators.

And will those four people please stand up now?

 

[MaximRecoil]

If it makes any of you feel better about stealing music from evil corporations, RCA stole my arcade ambience sounds for Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" video. 

Her video (first 10-15 seconds):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQ25-glGRzI

The 1983 'sample' track they used without permission:
http://arcade.hofle.com/arcade/arcade83sample.mp3

Are you being serious about that? There is at least one section of the audio where it is obviously the same as your 1983 sample track. From 5 seconds to 9 seconds on the video there are two distinctive types of sounds that are the same as the first 4 seconds of your sample track. How did you make that audio?

Edit: It does seem to be completely the same, starting at about the 5 second mark when they enter the building until the music starts at the 14 second mark; it parallels the first 9 seconds of your sample track. Even the first 4 seconds before they enter the building seems to be part of that sample track, but at a reduced volume.

[Havok]

If it makes any of you feel better about stealing music from evil corporations, RCA stole my arcade ambience sounds for Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" video. 

Her video (first 10-15 seconds):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQ25-glGRzI

The 1983 'sample' track they used without permission:
http://arcade.hofle.com/arcade/arcade83sample.mp3

Perhaps they got permission from the truecopyright holders? After all, those aren't your original sounds...

There's been plenty of musicians that got caught sampling other artists music, and passing it off as their own. Since they did have to pay restitution, I can only surmise that their work was not considered legal, so sampling someone else's work and mixing it your way does not necessarily make it yours now...

[MaximRecoil]

Perhaps they got permission from the truecopyright holders? After all, those aren't your original sounds...

I doubt that. I can't see someone sitting down and identifying every blip and bleep in there, nor can I see the various people who "own" those quarter century old fragments of electronic sounds even knowing that they "own" them:

Some guy at Williams: Hey Bob, is that our "blip" right there?

In any event, I think that whoever originally records the sounds of a bunch of random arcade machines has "fair use" on his side. I'm not so sure about someone who then goes and "borrows" that original recording. They would of course be free to go record their own arcade sounds.

For example, I doubt the makers of "The King of Kong" got permission from any arcade companies to record video and audio inside of Funspot while the arcade machines were turned on, nor do I believe that they needed to. But that doesn't mean someone else can freely use the material they recorded just because it consisted of sights and sounds that the makers of KoK didn't "own". 

[saint]

Interestingly enough, when I wrote my book, my publisher made me get written permission from every party whose images I used.

[Havok]

I doubt that. I can't see someone sitting down and identifying every blip and bleep in there, nor can I see the various people who "own" those quarter century old fragments of electronic sounds even knowing that they "own" them:

Some guy at Williams: Hey Bob, is that our "blip" right there?

So you're telling me you can't identify any of the games in his recording? At the point where that can be done reliably by a number of people, it is infringing on their copyright, I would think.

In any event, I think that whoever originally records the sounds of a bunch of random arcade machines has "fair use" on his side. I'm not so sure about someone who then goes and "borrows" that original recording. They would of course be free to go record their own arcade sounds.

Fair use doesn't count when you sample copyrighted materials - just ask all those youtubers whose videos got pulled because they had copyrighted material in the background of their original works...

For example, I doubt the makers of "The King of Kong" got permission from any arcade companies to record video and audio inside of Funspot while the arcade machines were turned on, nor do I believe that they needed to. But that doesn't mean someone else can freely use the material they recorded just because it consisted of sights and sounds that the makers of KoK didn't "own". 

True enough, but the arcade sounds are not the focus of the documentary, plus that was a recording of a public place. Additionally, I believe that ahofle's work was not actually recorded from an arcade, if I recall correctly. Besides, it comes down to he sampled someone's copyrighted material - it's not something that was in the background while he was filming something else. That's all it is, a sample of the work...

Interestingly enough, when I wrote my book, my publisher made me get written permission from every party whose images I used.

A perfect example of CYA!

[MaximRecoil]

So you're telling me you can't identify any of the games in his recording? At the point where that can be done reliably by a number of people, it is infringing on their copyright, I would think.

I used the word "every" not "any".

Fair use doesn't count when you sample copyrighted materials - just ask all those youtubers whose videos got pulled because they had copyrighted material in the background of their original works...

You can sample copyrighted materials for certain reasons. But still, this isn't the same thing as having e.g. a song playing in the background. These are a bunch of arcade machine sounds all mashed together.

True enough, but the arcade sounds are not the focus of the documentary, plus that was a recording of a public place. Additionally, I believe that ahofle's work was not actually recorded from an arcade, if I recall correctly. Besides, it comes down to he sampled someone's copyrighted material - it's not something that was in the background while he was filming something else. That's all it is, a sample of the work...

Ahofle's recording is not distinguishable from something recorded from an actual arcade. When it comes right down to it though, only the courts can determine whether or not a copyright has been violated and to what extent. The best that anyone else can do, including legal experts, is to suggest a likelihood of a violation.

[Havok]

I used the word "every" not "any".

Quite a few of us here can identify every...

Sadly...

 

[Patent Doc]

Insert Quote
Quote from: MaximRecoil on Yesterday at 11:19:13 PM
I used the word "every" not "any".

Quite a few of us here can identify every...

Sadly...

 Grin

Even sadder is when you realize you can identify not only all the games, but what is happening when each particular sound is generated (e.g., the sound of the battle tanks in Tron).  I doubt I'm alone in this...god I really have no life.

[paigeoliver]

You know, 10 years ago I would have likely bought one of everything that guy was selling even though I was well aware it could all be downloaded, just because it would have been a lot easier.

Of course the really fun thing relating to arcade games is the fact that a rom chip from a PCB is just a chip (often totally unlabeled). Unlike a store bought CD or movie there is absolutely NO WAY to tell if it is an "original" in the first place. The board itself is hardware and thus doesn't matter for purposes of having the image. Of course, crack open a console cartridge sometime and gawk at the UNLABELLED ROM chips you will likely find inside.

Also complicating the issue for arcade games at least is the very real fact that arcade games (in general) didn't come with EULAs or anything, and a LOT of them now belong to Japanese companies who no longer have any US presence (or never did), actually that would probably describe MOST of the games in MAME.

For the most part the arcade game manufacturers were in the hardware business, not the software business.

Finally, piracy could basically be totally and completely shut down by simply altering the pricing strategy on media. In the case of movies and music the originals could STILL be sold profitably for the price of the bootlegs, and people would likely spend more money than they do now. As for old video games, that is meaningless, as only a teeny number of them hold any value outside of the franchise name itself.

[ChadTower]

You mentioned movie piracy. Once upon a time, that was just an annoyance to the MPAA. There was a street vendor here and there in large cities. When it first started in digital form, few people knew about it. Once it became "mainstream" though, all hell broke loose. You can find pirateers at every flea market in the country here in the states. It is 1 million times worse in the rest of the world.

Doesn't really seem to matter, though, as the MPAA reports record growth and box office receipts.

[ark_ader]

I really like these debates, but doesn't it worry you that someone is reading these posts and is building a case for such a moral precedent?  Something to show the up and coming generation that stealing isn't cool.

A subpoena issued to Saint's Web provider to show IPs and personal information, could yield something nasty and give some politician wanting to make a name for him/herself some ammunition.

I would hate to be someones cannon fodder. 

[FrizzleFried]

I really like these debates, but doesn't it worry you that someone is reading these posts and is building a case for such a moral precedent?  Something to show the up and coming generation that stealing isn't cool.

A subpoena issued to Saint's Web provider to show IPs and personal information, could yield something nasty and give some politician wanting to make a name for him/herself some ammunition.

I would hate to be someones cannon fodder. 

You ARE kidding...right?   

[(+_+)]

Finally, piracy could basically be totally and completely shut down by simply altering the pricing strategy on media. In the case of movies and music the originals could STILL be sold profitably for the price of the bootlegs, and people would likely spend more money than they do now. As for old video games, that is meaningless, as only a teeny number of them hold any value outside of the franchise name itself.

Couldn't agree with you more here. Bluray disks are a perfect example of this. They actually believe, I'm going to pay through the nose and buy these overpriced items. I'll rent them until the end of time instead just to prove a point. It's too bad everyone didn't feel this way. I see people grabbing new DVD releases for $26.99 all the time. These are the people that fuel the greed.

[ArtsNFartsNCrafts]

I was at a local comic convention also, a few years back, and my film crew and I interviewed a "ROM" merchant.  He said, and I quote, "Once they take the consoles off the market, the ROMs are fair game."

I should note, that the first thing I asked him (on camera) was, "What're we offering today?"  To which he replied, "That depends...who are you with?"