ULTRACADE Discontinued as of 9/01/05

[paigeoliver]

A few minor comments related to various posts.

Windows costs $200 in a retail box, only costs the OEM $10 to $40 (depending on the company and their agreement with microsoft, and the windows version).

It is almost always cheaper to buy a PC prebuilt from a manufacturer (in which case you will be paying for windows) than it is to put one together.

Of the people who DO custom build their own computers the majority of them do it because they are high end gamers. Virtually no games come out for Linux. Therefore said gamers use windows.

Therefore I post the idea that Linux costs more than Windows.


Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible, nor any of the other ancient works and ideas that the laws of our modern world are based on. It is a cancer on our society that causes entire lives to be wasted duplicating work that has already been done. Like it or not, the laws of our world are based on ancient ideas that all people seem to almost innately understand. IP has no place there, thats why the public doesn't care. Thats why grandma doesn't think there is anything wrong with copying her slot machine CDROM to give to the other old ladies at the bridge club. So basically, I don't see any difference between a 3000 year old egyptian artifact and a rom from 1989.

And for the record. I think the mamedevs as a group are absolutely full of it. They develop driver after driver using rom archives that they HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO in the first place, but then take an "anti-piracy" stance. How did they write the driver for the military battlezone? The driver must have written itself because there is only one machine and the mamedevs never had it. How about those bootleg images eh? There is no way in THE WORLD to have a legal copy of the data on one of those bootleg boards. Those drivers must have written themselves, and snuck in around the anti-piracy police.

So, what is the difference between the Mamedevs and I? Easy, I'm not doing one thing and saying another.

[MaximRecoil]

Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible

Can you imagine Moses trying to copyright the Ten Commandments?

The funny thing about that is, most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible like the NIV are copyrighted.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

[paigeoliver]

Morally, I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, period. There is no mention of it in the bible

Can you imagine Moses trying to copyright the Ten Commandments?

The funny thing about that is, most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible like the NIV are copyrighted.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

[ChadTower]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.  The fact that it can be reproduced without physical materials bears no moral relevance here. 

[Stingray]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.  The fact that it can be reproduced without physical materials bears no moral relevance here. 

I find the discussion about whether or not IP is protected by the bible to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. However, the above CWT quote covers it.

-S

[RayB]

Oh for f*** sake. Arcade games weren't in the bible. Get rid of yours Paige. They are a false idol.

[Havok]

Thou shalt not steal.

IP is the modern equivalent of physical goods.

[ChadTower]

It cannot be easily duplicated.  You have to desolder ROM chips from those older boards and use expensvie equipment to read them.  That is not easy.  That is the exact definition of circumvention of proper use as well as reverse engineering.


Your whole argument boils down to "I want it and can get it so I am entitled to it."

And people ask why I stopped writing games to be given away.  Users like this would send me nasty emails demanding features and updates.  They would get angry with me for not being fast enough, not being responsive enough, for a ---smurfing--- free product I was writing in time that would have been better spent with my family.  Then when I discovered that someone decompiled it and added in a bunch of stuff I didn't want there, then rereleased it WITH MY NAME... forget that.

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.  The fact that they are so self righteous about it makes it very difficult to tolerate, too.

[RayB]

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.

[Stingray]

I've seen the same thing as Ray. Most of the vocal "I am entilted to it for free because I can find it for free" crowd do tend to be teenagers. Most people grow out of this kind of attitude as they mature, and learn to respect the hard work of others.

-S

[CheffoJeffo]

Lack of respect of Intellectual Property is a major, major issue with this up and coming generation.  The fact that they are so self righteous about it makes it very difficult to tolerate, too.

I agree completely (though perhaps not as vehemently) with CT on this.

People seem to feel that they are *entitled* to IP belonging to others. The simple fact that some people share their IP is wonderful (and I wish that more owners of out-of-date IP would release), but it certainly doesn't mean that everybody should and it certainly doesn't mean that they are bad if they don't.

The old OpenSource arguments about why information should be free are getting a little tired ... I have had IP stolen by a bad client who gave it directly to a competitor ... they got a three year jump in their development cycle.

It is easy enough to argue that IP should be free when you haven't spent years creating it and don't depend on it to house, clothe and feed your family.

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

Chad, have you found that these people tend to be teens, or do you have no idea of the age range that thinks/acts like this?

I personally have experienced that type of attitude and it seems to be predominantly high schoolers. Kids old enough to know how to use basic software toolsets, but not mature enough to respect another person's hard work or even fathom what goes into it.

I don't know many teens.

[ChadTower]

The old OpenSource arguments about why information should be free are getting a little tired ... I have had IP stolen by a bad client who gave it directly to a competitor ... they got a three year jump in their development cycle.

The flaw in the OpenSource argument is that arcade roms are not open source.  They are not freely distributable, they are not derivable, and they have no relation to the GPL that governs most open source projects. MAME itself may or may not fall under the GPL, I have no idea.  The roms that MAME uses are commercial software that is not governed by the GPL that allows people to freely distribute GPL software so long as they leave the license/credit information intact.

[Stingray]

I think open source is a great concept and I applaud everyone who works on open source projects. However, it's up to the creator of any work to decide if they want to go the open source route or not. It is their creation, and IMO they have every right to do with it what they will.

-S

[quarterback]

There's not enough Ultracade bashing in this Ultracade thread.

[Stingray]

Ultracade smells like poo-poo.

-S

[ChadTower]

I honestly don't care very much about Ultracade.  One of the grey area MAME users became legally aggressive.  Oh yay, no one could have seen that coming.

[Havok]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain. They don't make the hardware for the most part. If a company stays active and continues to sell said product, then by all means, keep it out of the public domain. But this forever thing (or whatever amount of unreasonable time period) is just greedy.

Good thing the wheel was never considered IP, no other company\person would be able to make one.

Oh, and how about the concept of time? Clocks are my IP, you can't use anything that resembles a time piece.

Rubbish!

Oh, and Ultracade stinks like a two day old soiled baby diaper!

[ChadTower]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain.

Justify the 10 year period, as opposed to the 75 or whatever years Disney has had Congress make it today.

IP DOES expire after a set amount of time.

[RayB]

Perhaps a more logical copyright law would be one where it expires X years after last use in commerce. Then Disney would have Mickey Mouse forever, but IP that's been abandoned would fall into public domain.

[ChadTower]

Perhaps a more logical copyright law would be one where it expires X years after last use in commerce. Then Disney would have Mickey Mouse forever, but IP that's been abandoned would fall into public domain.

You don't have to use it in commerce to be using it.  Any active use qualifies.  It does seem a bit more reasonable to say "hey, no one has used this IP in 45 years, maybe it should be public domain"... but who is to say the owner doesn't decide in year 47 to use it?  I think the laws are set up to try and mirror physical goods in a way.  No matter how long that box of stuff has been in your attic, I am not entitled to walk up there and take it without your permission.

[Havok]

IP should expire after a time. For example - ROMS... anything older than 10 years should become public domain.

Justify the 10 year period, as opposed to the 75 or whatever years Disney has had Congress make it today.

IP DOES expire after a set amount of time.

[ChadTower]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

[Havok]

No matter how long that box of stuff has been in your attic, I am not entitled to walk up there and take it without your permission.

That's my whole problem with IP - I am not "taking" anything - I never went into your attic, and your crap is still there. Give credit where credit is due, and if you haven't commercially supported your thingey in X number of years, and everyone has pretty much forgotten about it, and I come along and want to do the same thing, then I can use the same "idea" since that's all it is, any way I want...

[Havok]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

From the gov:

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Hello? Too long.

[ChadTower]

You know why it is that long?  An example would be Elvis.  Elvis has long been dead, but how could someone say that his heirs don't deserve the money generated by his work?

If I write an entire #1 album today, but die next week, who gets all that money?  It damn well better be my kids.

The people who do the work deserve ownership and profit.  No one else has a justifiable claim to it.

You keep saying it is too long.  You have not said why it is too long.  I don't think you have a reason other than that you want it for yourself and that is the exact lack of respect I am talking about.  Until you can come up with a justifiable reason, all you are doing is demonstrating the problem.

[Harry Potter]

You know why it is that long?  An example would be Elvis.  Elvis has long been dead, but how could someone say that his heirs don't deserve the money generated by his work?

Elvis should have had a copyright. Then we'd see no ---auto censored--- Elvis impersonators ( or as they preffer: Tribute Artists) 

[CheffoJeffo]

My opinion - copywrites and the such are for much too long, and I believe can be renewed, so I think they are still not the right solution.

Why are they too long?

From the gov:

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Hello? Too long.

Saying that they are too long and explaining WHY they are too long are two very different things.

I happen to agree that these are too long, particularly for abandonware (I like the idea of required excercise of IP rights, or else the IP shifts to PD) , BUT I don't really have a compelling reason as to why ... other than perhaps I'd like unused things to be available to the public domain sooner, which is not a right in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.

Cheers.

[Havok]

You know why it is that long?

[ChadTower]

You're confusing patents with copyrights.  Keep trying, though.

BTW, I don't have a mame machine at all, so turning the magnifying glass back onto me doesn't work.

[CheffoJeffo]

It will be interesting how Apple and Creative work out this new problem: Creative just got the copywrite on the menu system of selecting items on a portable music device. What kind of crap is that? Anyways, Apple is screwed because they have a bazillion iPods out there, that are now infringing on Creative's copywrite. What do you say to that? Should Apple recall all their iPods, since Creative was the first to market with the structure of their menu systems? I think this illustrates my point that creativity is now being stifled, or held hostage for a fee.

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

IIRC, RandyT was looking at patents related to the GP-Wiz49 because he believes the approach is distinct enough that it warrants protection from others who would copy his work. Is that a BadThing ?

Look at open source products. Look how rapidly Linux has improved, as far as features, reliability, and ease of use. Could Linus do all of that? No! There are hundreds of people involved, which would not have been possible if this idotic lawyer conceived concept of IP and Linus was like Foley...

Different issue and you don't highlight the single most important point ... Linus CHOSE to release as Open Source (as did the other contributors). If I write Cheffix on my own and chose not to release it as Open Source, then that is my right and my rights need to be respected.

Please note that I am not trying to be difficult or obnoxious, I'm just trying to point out that there is the matter of choice to consider. The creator of new and distinct intellectual property is afforded certain rights under the law (obviously varying by jurisdiction) and has the right to choose how their creations are distributed and (to a certain extent) used.


Cheers.

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

It is a patent issue, not a copyright issue.  All Apple has to do, if they are in violation of Creative's patent, is come up with another way to present menus.  Patents do not stifle creativity.  Patents protect creativity.  Creative came up with a display method and they own it.  Now Apple, if they are in violation of that patent, will have to create a new way to display their menus.  The patent is not on all methods for displaying menus on a mobile device, it is on one particular method.

[Havok]

You're confusing patents with copyrights.

[Havok]

It will be interesting how Apple and Creative work out this new problem: Creative just got the copywrite on the menu system of selecting items on a portable music device. What kind of crap is that? Anyways, Apple is screwed because they have a bazillion iPods out there, that are now infringing on Creative's copywrite. What do you say to that? Should Apple recall all their iPods, since Creative was the first to market with the structure of their menu systems? I think this illustrates my point that creativity is now being stifled, or held hostage for a fee.

This is a patent issue, isn't it ? And all Apple has to do is pay Creative for use of the IP in the patent. While I do think that patents are being given out worldwide for some simply silly things, there are cases where patents are GoodThings.

IIRC, RandyT was looking at patents related to the GP-Wiz49 because he believes the approach is distinct enough that it warrants protection from others who would copy his work. Is that a BadThing ?

Look at open source products. Look how rapidly Linux has improved, as far as features, reliability, and ease of use. Could Linus do all of that? No! There are hundreds of people involved, which would not have been possible if this idotic lawyer conceived concept of IP and Linus was like Foley...

Different issue and you don't highlight the single most important point ... Linus CHOSE to release as Open Source (as did the other contributors). If I write Cheffix on my own and chose not to release it as Open Source, then that is my right and my rights need to be respected.

Please note that I am not trying to be difficult or obnoxious, I'm just trying to point out that there is the matter of choice to consider. The creator of new and distinct intellectual property is afforded certain rights under the law (obviously varying by jurisdiction) and has the right to choose how their creations are distributed and (to a certain extent) used.


Cheers.

Cheers.

I agree. My main point I am trying to make is that if you ABANDON it, and I want to use it many, many years after you stopped caring, supporting, or existing. I should be able to use it for FREE - not profit, and nobody whines about it...

[ChadTower]

Just curious about the Mame deal - more power to you.

No confusion - I'm just talking IP. Copywrites and patents both apply in theory. Just wanted to give some examples. Here's one for you:

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...

[Stingray]

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...  15 years later, I pick it up and make it 50 times better: more features, lots of bells and whistles, make it work on a current O/S. I give you credit, and don't charge a dime for it. What are your thoughts on that scenario?

This question is directed at Chad, but I'm going to giv my take on it anyway. I think it would be great for you to update this hypothetical software provided you asked for and recieved permission to do so. This is exactly why copyright laws are in place, right?

-S

[Havok]

You write a program, sell it. Works great on that 5.25" floppy...

[JamIt]

If my great grandfather wrote a song, and some dork rapper used the same lyrics, but the song hasn't even been heard for 50 years, do I care? No!

Dork rapper?

[ChadTower]

In that case you write your own app.

[Havok]

In that case you write your own app.