cant seem to grasp why mame is 'illegal' for commercial use

[ark_ader]

What I like about this thread is everyone has an opinion, but does not research before hand and post their conclusions with factual data to back it up.  It is all hearsay until you reference your information.  I also like how nobody comments on how MAME got the roms to work in the first place, when there was some form of protection when the roms were dumped prior to 2000.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/index.html

Then we have the OP asking why MAME cannot be used in a commercial setting.  Posters say because of the ROMS, but what IF the OP got permission to use the ROMS?  I really do not see how MAME which runs software to emulate actual hardware, can justify enforcing use of a commercial setting, considering that the actual purpose of the machine(s) emulated were originally used for commercial purposes.  If MAME is hiding behind the Library of Congress rulings of 2006, how does that fit with new arcade machines being manufactured with these game ROMs installed?

http://www.bmigaming.com/pacman-mspacman-galaga-home.htm

Something doesn't add up here?

http://mamedev.org/legal.html


I will reference Mr. Foley as he managed to get permission from the copyright owners to use his product.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060506022028/http://www.ultracade.com/about/11/corporate-profile

Can the MAME team show the same endorsement from Namco Bandai?

[Malenko]

wow, you totally missed my point then agreed with what I said the entire way.

I never said the MAME license trumps the legality of the ROMs. I said it doesnt matter if the ROMs are legal you cant run mame for commercial endevors becase the MAME license doesnt allow it. If I wasnt clear, my appologies.

Secondly , I was ASKING about the legality of using ROMs on software that doesnt have a license restriction. I, for example, have both KI1 and KI2 PCBs that no longer work. They are not back ups or bootlegs, they are the real deal PCBs that are beyond my repair ability (a lot of surface mount stuff). So I was just askin, if I had a PC inside a KI cab, right next to the KI PCB/HD and ran KI for the purpose of having it in a bar and I got all the valid permits and ran it on software that doest have a commercial restriction, would that be "legal"

my epeen isnt big enough for this thread

[Haze]

This is very simple:

1. MAMEDev owns the code and trademark, in short, they own MAME.

2. They have the right to say what you can or can't do with their property.  "Open source" doesn't mean that no one owns the right to the intellectual property, it just means that anyone can contribute.  Google owns Android, and they say that you can't use it on Netbooks, therefore you can't do so. (I use this comparison because Android is also open source, I believe.)

3. They (MAMEDev) say that you can't use it commercially.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Yep, nothing else matters.  The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license, just as you are with any other piece of software.  Other emulators may have a different license which doesn't have this clause (although a lot of them take code directly from MAME anyway, so their legality could be questioned)

It doesn't matter if you have / haven't got the rights to the games, you simply don't have the right to run MAME in that way.  What Ultracade did / didn't license isn't relevant here (and is up in the air anyway I believe) because unless they were very, very naughty (which some people speculate), they weren't using MAME and therefore weren't bound by the MAME license agreement.

[Thenasty]

can't we all just get along and RESPECT MAME DEV wishes and not USE the program for commercial.

If you want to do such a thing, make your own program and get the rights for the ROM/GAMES so you can make money from it (just lke D.F.)       

[ark_ader]

This is very simple:

1. MAMEDev owns the code and trademark, in short, they own MAME.

2. They have the right to say what you can or can't do with their property.  "Open source" doesn't mean that no one owns the right to the intellectual property, it just means that anyone can contribute.  Google owns Android, and they say that you can't use it on Netbooks, therefore you can't do so. (I use this comparison because Android is also open source, I believe.)

3. They (MAMEDev) say that you can't use it commercially.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Yep, nothing else matters.  The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license, just as you are with any other piece of software.  Other emulators may have a different license which doesn't have this clause (although a lot of them take code directly from MAME anyway, so their legality could be questioned)

It doesn't matter if you have / haven't got the rights to the games, you simply don't have the right to run MAME in that way.  What Ultracade did / didn't license isn't relevant here (and is up in the air anyway I believe) because unless they were very, very naughty (which some people speculate), they weren't using MAME and therefore weren't bound by the MAME license agreement.

It does matter and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME.  The Library of Congress ruling of 2006  which covers MAME development is under question as MAME has code that relates to arcade games that is not considered obsolete.

Actually we can look back to the first release of Mame back in 1995:


                                M A M E

                    Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

                  by Nicola Salmoria (MC6489@mclink.it)


Here is a quick list of ther currently supported games; read on for details.


Game                     Playable?   Accurate colors?    Sound?

Pac Man                    Yes            Yes             Yes
Ms Pac Man (bootleg)       Yes            Yes             Yes
Crush Roller               Yes            No              Yes
Pengo                      Yes            Yes             Yes
Lady Bug                   Yes            Yes            Partial



Acknoledgements
---------------

First of all, thanks to Allard van der Bas (avdbas@wi.leidenuniv.nl) for
starting the Arcade Emulation Programming Repository at
http://valhalla.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/emul8
Without the Repository, I would never have even tried to write an emulator.

If you find out something useful, submit it to avdbas@wi.leidenuniv.nl,
so it will be made available to everybody on the Repository page.

Z80Em Portable Zilog Z80 Emulator Copyright (C) Marcel de Kogel 1996,1997
Allegro library by Shawn Hargreaves, 1994/96
SEAL Synthetic Audio Library API Interface Copyright (C) 1995, 1996
   Carlos Hasan. All Rights Reserved.
Video mode created using Tweak 1.6b by Robert Schmidt, who also wrote
TwkUser.c.

Very special thanks to Sergio Munoz for the precious information about
the Pengo sound hardware and colors.
Thanks to Paul Swan for the information on the Lady Bug sound hardware.
Thanks to Gary Walton for his help in making the Crush Roller colors better.



Usage
-----

MAME [name of the game to run] [options]

for example

MAME mspacman -nosound   will run Ms Pac Man without sound

options:
-vesa         use standard 640x480x256 VESA mode instead of custom video mode
-noscanlines  use alternate video mode (not availble in all games)
-nosound      turn off sound
-nojoy        don't poll joystick
-log          create a log of illegal memory accesses in ERROR.LOG


The following keys work in all emulators:

3       Insert coin
1       Start 1 player game
2       Start 2 players game
Tab     Change dip switch settings
P       Pause
F3      Reset
F11     Activate fps counter
F12     Save a screen snapshot
ESC     Exit emulator



Pac Man, Ms Pac Man
-------------------

Arrows  Move around
F1      Skip level
F2      Test mode
CTRL    Speed up cheat

Known issues:
- Blinky and Pinky seem to be shifted one pixel to the right. This is really
  annoying, but I can't seem to be able to understand why. Maybe there is an
  additional "sprite offset" register somewhere? Or did the original just
  behave this way?
  Note that we can't fix it by just moving sprites 0 and 1 one pixel to the
  left, because when Pac Man eats a power pill the sprites order is changed
  so that Pac Man is drawn over the ghosts. It becomes sprite 0, and Blinky
  becomes sprite 4.


Crush Roller
------------

Crush Roller is a hacked version of Make Trax, modified to run on a
Pac Man board.

Arrows  Move around
F1      Skip level

Known issues:
- There's the same problem with sprites as in Pac Man, but here it could be
  fixed without apparent side effects.


Pengo
-----

Arrows  Move around
CTRL    Push
F1      Skip level
F2      Test mode



Lady Bug
--------

Arrows  Move around
F1      Skip level

Known issues:
- The noise generator is not emulated yet.


I do not see anywhere that MAME prohibits commercial use.  And (namco?) Pacman runs out of the box.....

So the OP could use this version of MAME?

Please tell.

[CheffoJeffo]

It does matter[/b][/i] and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME. 

I think the point is that the MAMEDevs don't promote this ... they've actually been pretty damned clear about it.

People ---smurfette--- about how changes to MAME make some games unplayable and how the MAMEDevs don't care enough about gameplay. I expect that the reason is that they aren't at all interested promoting MAME in that manner.

Check Youtube for Aaron's talk at a recent Cal Extreme.

[ark_ader]

It does matter[/b][/i] and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME.  

I think the point is that the MAMEDevs don't promote this ... they've actually been pretty damned clear about it.

People ---smurfette--- about how changes to MAME make some games unplayable and how the MAMEDevs don't care enough about gameplay. I expect that the reason is that they aren't at all interested promoting MAME in that manner.

Check Youtube for Aaron's talk at a recent Cal Extreme.

I agree completely, and I have seen Aaron's talk at CAX.  Cool stuff.

The point for the post above shows that in the past MAME was playing the games.  That issue really is past now and at last count MAME plays over 4000 games.  But there was no referendum with regards to games that were still available to purchase (saying that someone else would code it is not enough) and the recent dumps by Guru that duplicates are probably sitting in some arcade warehouse available to buy, doesn't cover the mandate given under the rulings of the DMCA.  

So when a person like the OP wants to put a Mspacman in his pizza shack, his options is to go to Ultracade, an arcade operator or Ebay.  But with MAME on the scene the OP can divert from buying from legitimate places and get it for free.  The Mame license should restrict anyone from playing the roms, as they have no permission to do so by the copyright holders (exemptions permitting).  Namco Bandai sells MsPacman/Galaga units.  Mame should not be able to play MsPacman or Galaga.

Right?

[SavannahLion]

Secondly , I was ASKING about the legality of using ROMs on software that doesnt have a license restriction. I, for example, have both KI1 and KI2 PCBs that no longer work. They are not back ups or bootlegs, they are the real deal PCBs that are beyond my repair ability (a lot of surface mount stuff). So I was just askin, if I had a PC inside a KI cab, right next to the KI PCB/HD and ran KI for the purpose of having it in a bar and I got all the valid permits and ran it on software that doest have a commercial restriction, would that be "legal"

In a nutshell. No. The issue goes back to the copyright on the ROM in question. With copyrights in place for 70 to 120 years or so, you'll likely run into legal issues if someone cares enough to go after you. Mind you, I'm not debating the technical aspects of it. If you're actually, physically using the KI HDD with the PC and not just sitting in the cab as you imply, then that might be possible. One would have to do further research into it.

[CheffoJeffo]

So when a person like the OP wants to put a Mspacman in his pizza shack, his options is to go to Ultracade, an arcade operator or Ebay.  But with MAME on the scene the OP can divert from buying from legitimate places and get it for free.  The Mame license should restrict anyone from playing the roms, as they have no permission to do so by the copyright holders (exemptions permitting).  Namco Bandai sells MsPacman/Galaga units.  Mame should not be able to play MsPacman or Galaga.

I see your point now.

While MAMEDevs have been good in not trying to emulate current games while they are earning money for the makers and distributors, I haven't seen discussion about games that are already in MAME and then rereleased.

OTOH, the barn door is already open on this and you are missing what is, by far, the most commonly used option for a situation like this -- the xx-in-1. It is used on route far more often than conventional MAME (I say conventional since the emulation is a direct ripoff of MAME). It's illegal and in violation of the MAME license, but it is everywhere and is the cheapest and easiest alternative.

[Haze]

It does matter[/b][/i] and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME.  

I think the point is that the MAMEDevs don't promote this ... they've actually been pretty damned clear about it.

People ---smurfette--- about how changes to MAME make some games unplayable and how the MAMEDevs don't care enough about gameplay. I expect that the reason is that they aren't at all interested promoting MAME in that manner.

Check Youtube for Aaron's talk at a recent Cal Extreme.

Agreed, no promotion is going on at all.  If you look at the recent documentation that is provided with MAME you'll see this is being made perfectly clear, the examples used are all games which have been made freely available.

MAME does what it does, it's a piece of software, which if provided with the appropriate game software will attempt to emulate the hardware required for that software to run.  Promotion would be saying 'replace all your Pacman cabinets with MAME because it's better'  If anything the opposite is done, you'll find the majority of developers promoting the restoration of the original hardware, and going out their way to help people who have issues with the hardware, often using what was discovered when emulating the games as a reference.

FWIW most games aren't protected at all, and most MAME development isn't even done in the US.  Existing court cases, such as the case Sony had against various PSX emulators have always ruled in favour of emulation being legal.  MAME contains no material which could be considered under copyright of anybody except the development team, it simply knows what to do with the game software if provided.

Anyway, this is separate from the issue being discussed which was simply 'Why can't MAME be used in a commercial setting' for which the answer is simply because the license that comes with MAME states that you can't.  If you believe a significantly older version does not have such a clause then maybe (pending verification with the author who holds the copyright on it) such a version could be used but all recent distributions have an explicit license agreement which states they can't be used for commercial purposes.  

So when a person like the OP wants to put a Mspacman in his pizza shack, his options is to go to Ultracade, an arcade operator or Ebay.  But with MAME on the scene the OP can divert from buying from legitimate places and get it for free.  The Mame license should restrict anyone from playing the roms, as they have no permission to do so by the copyright holders (exemptions permitting).  Namco Bandai sells MsPacman/Galaga units.  Mame should not be able to play MsPacman or Galaga.

If they want a legal option to operate MSPacman on location the only options they have is finding an official MSPacman board on ebay (not a bootleg) or one of the newer models.  Ultracade I can't recommend at all due to the ongoing legal issues.  MAME they definitely can't run if they want to operate it legally regardless of any permissions from Namco because the MAME license states as much, so no, the OP can't revert to getting it for free if they want to operate it legally, and if they don't care about the legality of it they have plenty of other options.  (Chinese xx-in-1 bootleg boards, FGPA based boards, MAME, Ultracade etc.)  This doesn't make MAME illegal, but the use of it in such a situation would be.  It's like a knife, you can use it for cutting meat, or you can stab somebody with it.  The other options like the xx-in-1 (and depending on the outcome of the court case Ultracade ) would definitely be illegal from the start as they're actively distributing and promoting the units as coming with games, and distributing the games without permission.  MAME isn't doing this.

The primary goal of the project, is, as it's always been, to figure out how things work and document them in the form of source code which can reproduce the behavior of the original hardware to a high degree of accuracy.  The license and trademark restrictions applied help reaffirm this goal.  If you want to operate a machine commercially then by all means use the information in MAME to restore the original hardware, or, if there are reissues of the games available on different hardware, buy and operate those.  Also if you want to be absolutely sure that you're running legal original software, MAME recognizes a good number of known bootlegs, so if your 'original' hardware is identified as a bootleg you might want to reconsider the legality of it and not operate it on location.  MAME isn't promoting or encouraging any other use and when used properly can be a very useful tool with many legitimate uses.

[ark_ader]

It does matter[/b][/i] and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME.  

I think the point is that the MAMEDevs don't promote this ... they've actually been pretty damned clear about it.

People ---smurfette--- about how changes to MAME make some games unplayable and how the MAMEDevs don't care enough about gameplay. I expect that the reason is that they aren't at all interested promoting MAME in that manner.

Check Youtube for Aaron's talk at a recent Cal Extreme.

Agreed, no promotion is going on at all.  If you look at the recent documentation that is provided with MAME you'll see this is being made perfectly clear, the examples used are all games which have been made freely available.

MAME does what it does, it's a piece of software, which if provided with the appropriate game software will attempt to emulate the hardware required for that software to run.  Promotion would be saying 'replace all your Pacman cabinets with MAME because it's better'  If anything the opposite is done, you'll find the majority of developers promoting the restoration of the original hardware, and going out their way to help people who have issues with the hardware, often using what was discovered when emulating the games as a reference.

FWIW most games aren't protected at all, and most MAME development isn't even done in the US.  Existing court cases, such as the case Sony had against various PSX emulators have always ruled in favour of emulation being legal.  MAME contains no material which could be considered under copyright of anybody except the development team, it simply knows what to do with the game software if provided.

Anyway, this is separate from the issue being discussed which was simply 'Why can't MAME be used in a commercial setting' for which the answer is simply because the license that comes with MAME states that you can't.  If you believe a significantly older version does not have such a clause then maybe (pending verification with the author who holds the copyright on it) such a version could be used but all recent distributions have an explicit license agreement which states they can't be used for commercial purposes.  

You have not answered any of my questions put to you, have you?

Looks like you are ducking the issue on those replies.  I'm interested in the Namco Bandai question. 

[Haze]

It does matter[/b][/i] and I would like Haze to reference those emulators that is using MAME code as his post suggests.  Also again I ask Haze where is the agreement from Namco Bandai saying that it allows the Mamedevs to promote namco copyrighted software to be used in MAME.  

I think the point is that the MAMEDevs don't promote this ... they've actually been pretty damned clear about it.

People ---smurfette--- about how changes to MAME make some games unplayable and how the MAMEDevs don't care enough about gameplay. I expect that the reason is that they aren't at all interested promoting MAME in that manner.

Check Youtube for Aaron's talk at a recent Cal Extreme.

Agreed, no promotion is going on at all.  If you look at the recent documentation that is provided with MAME you'll see this is being made perfectly clear, the examples used are all games which have been made freely available.

MAME does what it does, it's a piece of software, which if provided with the appropriate game software will attempt to emulate the hardware required for that software to run.  Promotion would be saying 'replace all your Pacman cabinets with MAME because it's better'  If anything the opposite is done, you'll find the majority of developers promoting the restoration of the original hardware, and going out their way to help people who have issues with the hardware, often using what was discovered when emulating the games as a reference.

FWIW most games aren't protected at all, and most MAME development isn't even done in the US.  Existing court cases, such as the case Sony had against various PSX emulators have always ruled in favour of emulation being legal.  MAME contains no material which could be considered under copyright of anybody except the development team, it simply knows what to do with the game software if provided.

Anyway, this is separate from the issue being discussed which was simply 'Why can't MAME be used in a commercial setting' for which the answer is simply because the license that comes with MAME states that you can't.  If you believe a significantly older version does not have such a clause then maybe (pending verification with the author who holds the copyright on it) such a version could be used but all recent distributions have an explicit license agreement which states they can't be used for commercial purposes. 

You have not answered any of my questions put to you, have you?

I don't care to, they have no sound backing at all.

[ark_ader]

Thank you for that.  

And thanks for updating your previous post to reflect your change of heart.  So with that change you fail to mention game operators who have MsPacman units available for purchase.  Does the Mame program deny Namco Bandai revenue for these machines, purely because you cannot use MAME in a commercial venture or does it promote it due to exposure?  It looks that way doesn't it?

I'll ask Haze a simple straight forward question and call it a day:

Breaking encryption in games that MAME supports (like CPS2) from various Mamedevs - Does that give you license to perform these actions purely based on preservation of arcade games, and if so, where does MAME sit on the legality of such actions, with regard to the DMCA rulings?

[CheffoJeffo]

If they want a legal option to operate MSPacman on location the only options they have is finding an official MSPacman board on ebay (not a bootleg) or one of the newer models.  Ultracade I can't recommend at all due to the ongoing legal issues.  MAME they definitely can't run if they want to operate it legally regardless of any permissions from Namco because the MAME license states as much, so no, the OP can't revert to getting it for free if they want to operate it legally, and if they don't care about the legality of it they have plenty of other options.  (Chinese xx-in-1 bootleg boards, FGPA based boards, MAME, Ultracade etc.)  This doesn't make MAME illegal, but the use of it in such a situation would be.  It's like a knife, you can use it for cutting meat, or you can stab somebody with it.  The other options like the xx-in-1 (and depending on the outcome of the court case Ultracade ) would definitely be illegal from the start as they're actively distributing and promoting the units as coming with games, and distributing the games without permission.  MAME isn't doing this.

An excellent summary

The primary goal of the project, is, as it's always been, to figure out how things work and document them in the form of source code which can reproduce the behavior of the original hardware to a high degree of accuracy.  The license and trademark restrictions applied help reaffirm this goal.  If you want to operate a machine commercially then by all means use the information in MAME to restore the original hardware, or, if there are reissues of the games available on different hardware, buy and operate those.  MAME isn't promoting or encouraging any other use.

And, a worthy goal that is more beneficial to some of us "purists" than we often admit. I know that I have benefited from the work done by MAMEDevs in fixing broken boardsets and am using MAME to figure out how some boardsets work while trying to figure out what is wrong with them (haven't succeeded yet, but I am learning).

 

[versapak]

ark_ader:

Your argument is that because MAME gives people the ability to play games illegally (without permission of copyright holder) that they have no standing to say how MAME itself is used?

Are manufacturers of CD/DVD burners responsible for piracy that takes place with their product?

What about hard drive manufacturers? MP3 players?


Okay that is all hardware...

What about Windows Media Player? I can watch pirated movies and music to my hearts content with that software.

Does MS have no rightful claim in how that software is used because of that?


Maybe I just have your argument wrong, but it seems you are just arguing a point that is pointless.

[saint]

Probably a good time to repost this link

http://arcadecontrols.com/BYOAC-and-MAME.shtml

[Haze]

Thank you for that.  

And thanks for updating your previous post to reflect your change of heart.  So with that change you fail to mention game operators who have MsPacman units available for purchase.  Does the Mame program deny Namco Bandai revenue for these machines, purely because you cannot use MAME in a commercial venture or does it promote it due to exposure?  It looks that way doesn't it?

This doesn't make sense, so if this isn't the answer you're expecting then I don't know what you want to hear?  Once the game unit has been sold by Namco in the first place, they earn no more money from it.  Namco may earn money from further direct sales of the units.  If people want further units they must buy them from an operator selling them used, or Namco / a Namco partner.  Those are their legal options.  MAME doesn't even come into this, because MAME can't be used as a direct replacement.  If said operator doesn't care about the law they have plenty of options other than MAME.  The only revenue MAME is denying is that of people trying to sell it as a replacement for the real thing due to perodic crackdowns on people selling such machines on eBay etc.

The number of bootleg MsPacman PCBs far outweighs the number of illegal commercial MAME cabs, and probably even original MsPacman PCBs anyway.  If anything MAME can help an operator identify their MsPacman as a bootleg, and therefore may encourage them to replace it with an original, again, it's a useful tool.

I'll ask Haze a simple straight forward question and call it a day:

Breaking encryption in games that MAME supports (like CPS2) from various Mamedevs - Does that give you license to perform these actions purely based on preservation of arcade games, and if so, where does MAME sit on the legality of such actions, with regard to the DMCA rulings?

CPS2 encryption was worked on by devs in Finland, Spain and Italy.  The DMCA doesn't apply and wasn't even a consideration for those working on it.  MAME documents what is required for interoperability with the original software, and to use it you must still have the original software which isn't supplied with MAME.

[ark_ader]

ark_ader:

Your argument is that because MAME gives people the ability to play games illegally (without permission of copyright holder) that they have no standing to say how MAME itself is used?

Are manufacturers of CD/DVD burners responsible for piracy that takes place with their product?

What about hard drive manufacturers? MP3 players?


Okay that is all hardware...



What about Windows Media Player? I can watch pirated movies and music to my hearts content with that software.

Does MS have no rightful claim in how that software is used because of that?


Maybe I just have your argument wrong, but it seems you are just arguing a point that is pointless.

No its a very good point you are making and off topic but I will respond to it.

Mame is software that reproduces the same hardware found in old arcade machines - which preserves the game software from becoming lost.  Thus if a company wishes to release their software roms (Exidy for example) users can play the games as intended as a nice side effect. 

Manufacturers of CD/DVD/BR/Cassette/4 Track etc make products to record media on.  Primarily YOUR MEDIA THAT YOU CREATE, not somebody else's.  Data backup, images large file sizes of personall data included.

Mp3s - for online music from a distribution outlet like iTunes or YOUR OWN MEDIA THAT YOU CREATE.

What you do with this media is up to you and you alone.  Nobody makes these decisions for you.  You are responsible for your actions.

So your post is incredibly important as it demonstrates that we have the capacity to copy anything, but we also have the ability to choose if we want to or not. Or if we should or not.  Mamedevs always had the option to either allow game roms to function or not.

Incidentally Daphne now requests that you provide a purchased version of Dragon's Lair DVD before it allows you to download a better/working copy for it's emulator.  Something I bet is beneficial to Digital Leisure.  Kudos to them.

Mame is nothing but a normal (yet interesting) program without the ROMS.  Nobody forces you to get all the ROMS.

Films the same argument - nobody forces you to watch pirated movies.  You can buy them when they come out on DVD.

Very important observation! 

[jcterzin]

can't we all just get along and RESPECT MAME DEV wishes and not USE the program for commercial.
If you want to do such a thing, make your own program and get the rights for the ROM/GAMES so you can make money from it (just lke D.F.)

That is the aim im going for at this point. After all of these posts, I'm planning on respecting the wishes of the MAMEdev's. I do have a couple of friends that are interested in helping me write our own emulation code to play these roms (yes, I will get legal ones and permission). We plan on trying to work from the ground up but if the code they use (I imagine it will be in C programming language) is kinda like the mame one due to the fact that they both use the same code language... where does that stand? It would be nice if we could re-write RAINE a bit to get the roms to work, but its my programmer friends not I that know how to program.

And if anyone cares to help make an emulator that you can use for commercial, Im sure they wouldn't mind the help.

[ark_ader]

CPS2 encryption was worked on by devs in Finland, Spain and Italy.  The DMCA doesn't apply and wasn't even a consideration for those working on it.  MAME documents what is required for interoperability with the original software, and to use it you must still have the original software which isn't supplied with MAME.

For you information:

Italy

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=2475

Finland

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=1512

Spain

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=1373

Everybody and his brother

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

Be nice if you sticky this please Saint.

[CheffoJeffo]

This is somewhat offtopic, but I would like to mention and thank the folks who own old arcade IP that have been good about releasing to the public domain and/or reasonable in licensing. The example that comes foremost to my mind is Mean Hamster Software who bought the rights to Exidy's games and have released a bunch of them for free personal use in MAME, as well as licensing some others for use in multi-game kits, in particular the upcoming Exidy 440 Multikit, which includes 10 of Exidy's fantastic shooters (can you tell that I am eager to get mine!).

Now, can we get back to talking the OP out of destroying working classics ? 

[Haze]

What you do with this media is up to you and you alone.  Nobody makes these decisions for you.  You are responsible for your actions.

So your post is incredibly important as it demonstrates that we have the capacity to copy anything, but we also have the ability to choose if we want to or not. Or if we should or not.  Mamedevs always had the option to either allow game roms to function or not.

Unless there is a specific request not to emulate something then this isn't really a choice for Mamedev to make, it's one the user must make.

The development team just work to the best of their ability to document and understand things.  What you get is the collective knowledge of the developers in the form of a single source package, nothing more, nothing less.

The license agreement with Windows has various clauses too, such as it can't be used in mission critical setting IIRC (nuclear plants etc.) so Windows Media Player would be bound by those conditions in the same way that MAME is bound by a non-commercial use only clause.

MP3 players / WMP isn't going to start blacklisting MP3s just because they have some known warez group tag in them even, nor are they going to force the use of DRM protected music any time soon.  The responsibility for this is in the hands of the user, who must ensure that they use the product in a way which complies with the Windows license agreement as well as copies of the media they've legally made, or purchased themselves for use with it.  This is just the same as with MAME where the user has to ensure they use the program within the terms of both the MAME license, and for software which they own / have the right to use in the emulator.

There are significant non-infringing uses for both pieces of software, which many users here can tell you about, and that is often an important factor in any legal case.

MAME is even very often used by the manufacturers of the original games or licensed 3rd parties as a reference when doing new ports etc. and the development team maintain a good relationship with the games industry with many of them, including myself, being employed within it.  The majority of people I've encountered have a great deal of respect for the software, and can see why having their own classics available at the touch of a button is of a huge benefit, even if they can't officially legaly endorse it by releasing their games.

[J.Max]

CPS2 encryption was worked on by devs in Finland, Spain and Italy.  The DMCA doesn't apply and wasn't even a consideration for those working on it.  MAME documents what is required for interoperability with the original software, and to use it you must still have the original software which isn't supplied with MAME.

For you information:

Italy

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=2475

Finland

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=1512

Spain

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?id=1373

Everybody and his brother

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

Be nice if you sticky this please Saint.

These are copyright offices and copyright laws.  No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs.  We've established this.  Do you have any legal training?  Or are you trolling?

[ark_ader]

I said I wasn't going to respond in this thread after Haze, but after that gem of a response about Finland, Spain and Italy. 

I'm not trolling.  I said that to myself earlier today with regards to some responses in this thread: looks like you are trolling.

Legal training? Some.  Enough to ask the right questions.  The problem is I do not get the right answers. Ducking and diving is what I get.

J Max please please please reference your comments.

"No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs."   

[Ginsu Victim]

I do have a couple of friends that are interested in helping me write our own emulation code to play these roms (yes, I will get legal ones and permission).

Legal roms (for Pac-man and Centipede) and permission? Yeah.....good luck with that.

Again, check your local tax codes. You probably can't do it legally anyway.

[Haze]

I said I wasn't going to respond in this thread after Haze, but after that gem of a response about Finland, Spain and Italy.  

Well my point is that if you have issues with the individual developers, you'll have to take it up with them.  Nobody else can answer for you, and throwing around only US laws for an international project driven by individual developers makes no sense at all.

I'm not trolling.  I said that to myself earlier today with regards to some responses in this thread: looks like you are trolling.

Legal training? Some.  Enough to ask the right questions.  The problem is I do not get the right answers. Ducking and diving is what I get.

J Max please please please reference your comments.

"No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs."  

If you believe otherwise, please start a legal challenge against the team because it seems that you're as guilty as ducking and diving as anybody else.   legal@mamedev.org or similar should do the trick IIRC.

Nobody has taken action so far, and I don't believe anybody thinks it would be in their best interests to.  History has always fallen on the side of the emulation developers.  You're starting to sound as spineless as Foley and his associates who seemed to want to do their best to discredit MAME and have it declared illegal without actually putting any action behind their words other than trying to trademark something that wasn't his and then getting caught up in a nice little legal battle of his own.  The project is 11 years old, and so far hasn't faced a single legal challenge, but the way you're speaking makes it sound like you think everybody involved should be sued into oblivion, the project killed stone dead, and that the industry as a whole would see a great benefit from that.  I don't think anybody else agrees with you?

[ark_ader]

I said I wasn't going to respond in this thread after Haze, but after that gem of a response about Finland, Spain and Italy.  

Well my point is that if you have issues with the individual developers, you'll have to take it up with them.  Nobody else can answer for you, and throwing around only US laws for an international project driven by individual developers makes no sense at all.

I'm not trolling.  I said that to myself earlier today with regards to some responses in this thread: looks like you are trolling.

Legal training? Some.  Enough to ask the right questions.  The problem is I do not get the right answers. Ducking and diving is what I get.

J Max please please please reference your comments.

"No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs."  

If you believe otherwise, please start a legal challenge against the team.  Nobody has so far, and I don't believe anybody thinks it would be in their best interests to.  History has always fallen on the side of the emulation developers.  You're starting to sound as spineless as Foley and his associates.

 

I like you Haze you make me laugh.

[Haze]

I said I wasn't going to respond in this thread after Haze, but after that gem of a response about Finland, Spain and Italy.  

Well my point is that if you have issues with the individual developers, you'll have to take it up with them.  Nobody else can answer for you, and throwing around only US laws for an international project driven by individual developers makes no sense at all.

I'm not trolling.  I said that to myself earlier today with regards to some responses in this thread: looks like you are trolling.

Legal training? Some.  Enough to ask the right questions.  The problem is I do not get the right answers. Ducking and diving is what I get.

J Max please please please reference your comments.

"No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs."  

If you believe otherwise, please start a legal challenge against the team.  Nobody has so far, and I don't believe anybody thinks it would be in their best interests to.  History has always fallen on the side of the emulation developers.  You're starting to sound as spineless as Foley and his associates.

 

I like you Haze you make me laugh.

That's ok, you're the one who seems to think you have something to prove here, and the only way you're going to do that is by actually invoking some sort of legal action.  Everybody else is happy with things as they stand.

The world needs a destroyer of emulators..  I know I was given that title once when I finished off emulating everything Raine supported in MAME*, but really, just think about it, you could destroy the entire MAME project in one single swoop if you win, you'd be famous, the REAL destroyed of emulators, you'd be some kind of savior to the games industry and the world would shower you in magical rainbows and star drops.

* and likewise for some of the changes I decided to make to MAME in the past.

[J.Max]

OK, I do have legal training (University of Arizona 1999), and lets look at some precedents:  (I should state that I am not a lawyer, as I have never taken the Bar exam because I decided on another career path.)

I should have clarified my statement about MAME - it DOES contain proprietary code, but not proprietary code relevant to the ROM sets, only proprietary and owned by MAMEDev.

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc Vs Connectix Coporation  - The courts ruled that as long as a BIOS encryption was reverse-engineered and not simply copied and stolen, it was legal.  This should cover your assertions about the legality of the CPS2 encryption, and more importantly, it was upheld on appeal AFTER the DMCA went into effect.  (And is therefore a different situation than Sega vs Accolade.)  From the ruling:

"Some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others. Sony's BIOS lay at a distance from the core because it contains unprotected aspects that cannot be examined without copying. The court of appeal therefore accorded it a lower degree of protection than more traditional literary works."

http://web.archive.org/web/20070228070634/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0/66b3a352ea33712988256952007578c2?OpenDocument


Sega vs Accolade - Accolade lost this case, but the court upheld that disassembly of code is permitted under the fair use rule if the primary reason is to get to the parts of the code that are not copyrighted.  Again, this goes to your assertion about the CPS2 code.  In addition, this goes to why MAME can't be used for commercial purposes and why that is written into the license.  (Accolade lost the case because their primary reason for doing so was to circumvent the copy protection for profit.  This is also how MAME can be work as a non-profit entity, and why you can't sell it.)

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm


Here's another nice article (from the U of Iowa law journal) which explains things a bit further:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/yi3.html

They accepted Connectix's defense, which entailed the following use of the Fair Use doctrine:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You can find the references at the article's site.


All of this boils down to: emulators are legal because they are protected by reverse engineering laws and laws governing the use of commercial copyrights.  That's also the reason why they put "non-commercial" use clauses in the license, because "for profit" opens them up to a HUGE amount of civil lawsuits.

[ark_ader]

Seriously all I wanted to know was about the commercial side of things, and I got carried away. 

I cannot afford any legal challenge, as it is not my fight I have no vested interest and as you say nobody has even bothered.

I thought you were being cute with the international side of things, but I have seen the effects of mass emulation and it does effect software houses and benefits them too.

Perhaps I should be more mindful of the bigger issue and to learn when to quit.

[J.Max]

I said I wasn't going to respond in this thread after Haze, but after that gem of a response about Finland, Spain and Italy.  

Well my point is that if you have issues with the individual developers, you'll have to take it up with them.  Nobody else can answer for you, and throwing around only US laws for an international project driven by individual developers makes no sense at all.

I'm not trolling.  I said that to myself earlier today with regards to some responses in this thread: looks like you are trolling.

Legal training? Some.  Enough to ask the right questions.  The problem is I do not get the right answers. Ducking and diving is what I get.

J Max please please please reference your comments.

"No copyright law in the world is broken by MAME because it doesn't contain any proprietary code - that's in the ROMs."  

If you believe otherwise, please start a legal challenge against the team.  Nobody has so far, and I don't believe anybody thinks it would be in their best interests to.  History has always fallen on the side of the emulation developers.  You're starting to sound as spineless as Foley and his associates.

 

I like you Haze you make me laugh.

That's ok, you're the one who seems to think you have something to prove here, and the only way you're going to do that is by actually invoking some sort of legal action.  Everybody else is happy with things as they stand.

The world needs a destroyer of emulators..  I know I was given that title once when I finished off emulating everything Raine supported in MAME*, but really, just think about it, you could destroy the entire MAME project in one single swoop if you win, you'd be famous, the REAL destroyed of emulators, you'd be some kind of savior to the games industry and the world would shower you in magical rainbows and star drops.

* and likewise for some of the changes I decided to make to MAME in the past.

Nah, he has no legal interest in doing so.  It would be dismissed immediately.  You can't just sue to sue.

[Haze]

Seriously all I wanted to know was about the commercial side of things, and I got carried away.  

I cannot afford any legal challenge, as it is not my fight I have no vested interest and as you say nobody has even bothered.

I thought you were being cute with the international side of things, but I have seen the effects of mass emulation and it does effect software houses and benefits them too.

Perhaps I should be more mindful of the bigger issue and to learn when to quit.

I think that would help, because there is always a bigger picture.  In terms of industry development the games that MAME emulate are part of our heritage and always a valuable reference and without emulators a lot of the games that are out today wouldn't be the same games they are.  With emulators people can see the mistakes made in former games, or revisit old ideas bringing them to a modern stage.  Without emulators those games and ideas can be lost and forgotten, and yes, that even includes things released on platforms such as CPS2.

From a hardware point of view I've already given several examples of where MAME helps people with original hardware.

There is no clear cut 'MAME is doing wrong' legal argument to be had anywhere and sales of classic games on XBLA etc. are still good, despite emulators being available.  Without existing emulators those ports / emulators would have been more expensive to develop, and the continued interest in retrogaming has kept the titles popular enough to still sell rather than being forgotten and falling into obscurity.

Look at sometihng like Shenmue on the Dreamcast, they included some retro titles in their ingame arcade.  I have it on good authority (but from a confidential source) that the reason they couldn't include some of their games was because those games weren't emulated, so they had no reference to how their protection devices worked, and because their roms were encrypted simply couldn't run them.  These days that wouldn't be a problem because the Sega hardware (and associated protection) is now emulated properly and because of that they would be able to pick up a copy of MAME, see the game running, and figure out the relevant parts from the source.  This would not only saving them time and money, but actually make what they wanted to do possible.

If you take the view that MAME is simply a program that allows you to pirate arcade games then it's easy to try building up an argument like the one you have, but really, despite a lot of people using MAME in that way it's a much bigger project with a much more important role in the history of arcade hardware, and the games that ran on it.

[Haze]

Nah, he has no legal interest in doing so.  It would be dismissed immediately.  You can't just sue to sue.

he could attempt to stir up some interest in doing so if he really wanted, much as people did with Ultracade once it was revealed that some of their stuff wasn't licensed.  For all I know he could have been trolling on behalf of a company anyway.

[Blanka]

The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license

Guess that is a EULA. And as far as I know, nobody has ever been sued with succes over violating a EULA in Europe. Just because judges work on reasonability, and reading a EULA is definitely not a common thing to do.

[J.Max]

The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license

Guess that is a EULA. And as far as I know, nobody has ever been sued with succes over violating a EULA in Europe. Just because judges work on reasonability, and reading a EULA is definitely not a common thing to do.

It's really, really complicated in the US, but the GNU Public License has been enforced in court many, many times in the US and Europe.

MySQL AB v. Progress NuSphere (2002, US)

netfilters/iptables v. Sitecom Germany (2004, this was in Germany)

gpl-violations.org vs. D-Link (2005, also in Germany)

Free Software Foundation v Cisco Inc (2007, US)

[Haze]

The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license

Guess that is a EULA. And as far as I know, nobody has ever been sued with succes over violating a EULA in Europe. Just because judges work on reasonability, and reading a EULA is definitely not a common thing to do.

It's really, really complicated in the US, but the GNU Public License has been enforced in court many, many times in the US and Europe.

MySQL AB v. Progress NuSphere (2002, US)

netfilters/iptables v. Sitecom Germany (2004, this was in Germany)

gpl-violations.org vs. D-Link (2005, also in Germany)

Free Software Foundation v Cisco Inc (2007, US)

Yeah, the MAME license is derived from the BSD license, but with a non-commercial clause.  It should be on sound legal ground.

[J.Max]

The license says that you can't use MAME in a commercial way, and by downloading / using MAME you are agreeing to this license

Guess that is a EULA. And as far as I know, nobody has ever been sued with succes over violating a EULA in Europe. Just because judges work on reasonability, and reading a EULA is definitely not a common thing to do.

It's really, really complicated in the US, but the GNU Public License has been enforced in court many, many times in the US and Europe.

MySQL AB v. Progress NuSphere (2002, US)

netfilters/iptables v. Sitecom Germany (2004, this was in Germany)

gpl-violations.org vs. D-Link (2005, also in Germany)

Free Software Foundation v Cisco Inc (2007, US)

Yeah, the MAME license is derived from the BSD license, but with a non-commercial clause.  It should be on sound legal ground.

Plenty strong.  What I can't grasp is why people think that MAMEDev hasn't done their homework in regards to the law.  It is a very large project, it's been going on for 15 years, and it's already been through one legal challenge.  MAME is a far cry from being one guy coding in his basement or something...and even the ones that are one guy in a garage know to use a software license.

[ark_ader]

Nah, he has no legal interest in doing so.  It would be dismissed immediately.  You can't just sue to sue.

he could attempt to stir up some interest in doing so if he really wanted, much as people did with Ultracade once it was revealed that some of their stuff wasn't licensed.  For all I know he could have been trolling on behalf of a company anyway.

That was not my intention I am researching for my college assignment.

Associating me with Foley was a bit much.  I thought you were losing it there.   

The assignment is based on reverse software engineering and its commercial impacts.

I was asking probing questions and collecting information. 

Sometimes being combative assists research, thus my persistant tone.  I was lucky I got an Ex Mame Dev Cor-ordinator and I zeroed in. 

Aaron does not respond to my emails.

Very close to what Haze was suggesting though.

It did not occur to me to contact Haze directly.

Lesson learned.

[Haze]

Nah, he has no legal interest in doing so.  It would be dismissed immediately.  You can't just sue to sue.

he could attempt to stir up some interest in doing so if he really wanted, much as people did with Ultracade once it was revealed that some of their stuff wasn't licensed.  For all I know he could have been trolling on behalf of a company anyway.

That was not my intention I am researching for my college assignment.

Associating me with Foley was a bit much.  I thought you were losing it there.  

The assignment is based on reverse software engineering and its commercial impacts.

I was asking probing questions and collecting information.  

Sometimes being combative assists research, thus my persistant tone.  I was lucky I got an Ex Mame Dev Cor-ordinator and I zeroed in.  

Aaron does not respond to my emails.

Aaron.. yeah, he often doesn't respond.  I still think he's a pretty useless co-ordinator as he won't put his foot down on issues and prefers to take the easy route out when problems arise, but that's just my opinion.  Nobody seems to want to cross him for the risk of getting kicked off the team, as I was in the end.  Good luck with your project, as with any it's important to look at all sides, and dig deeper than your initial thoughts and opinions.

I still contribute to the project because I think it's a worthwhile cause, and will eventually be valued by all, even if I have issues with the people involed right now.  Once MESS get their s**t sorted out (which is happening) I think that can play the same role for Consoles and to a lesser degree (because it's a significantly harder task) Computers.

[FrizzleFried]

...alright Ark Foley... what's your endgame?