Main > Main Forum

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

<< < (25/29) > >>

ark_ader:
Haze, it isn't that we do not enjoy what MAME has given, (I am not sure Saint's book would not have had the popularity which MAME has brought) that is echoed a million times throughout the world.  So many platforms enjoy MAME from computers to hand-held devices.  Games that we loved are wonderfully presented, right on our desktops.  Documentation and examples for those future developers who will benefit from the many programmers out there is just completely amazing.  It is not clear why MAME cannot be used for commercial use.

Is MAME a self-imposed repository for information like the Library Of Congress designation (apologies Haze but mame.net and mamedev.org is registered in the USA)?  Is MAME considered public domain or does it have agreements with other entities like Ultracade?  Do companies connected to archived product have a legal right to use such code in their commercial endeavors?

My questions are to be deemed hypthetical (and I'm not asking Haze to answer.  I'm just throwing this out here for general discussion), but in a world where MAME is compared to the MP3 player, perhaps MAME should become a commercial entity.  If we all paid to use MAME it would at least provide funds for more PCB purchases.

Haze mentioned Ultarcade and how game packs had mirrored behaviors like in MAME.

--- Quote from: Haze on February 06, 2010, 08:44:17 am ---
Alternatively David Foley / Ultracade could have attempted to reverse engineer the hardware themselves and emulate the original.  Did they?  No.  They relied on the information that MAME had already discovered, and simply emulated the same bootleg supported by MAME that 'works'.  (I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with this as we state that the information is free to use, even if the implementation isn't)

So even with what are meant to be legitimately licensed games it is quite clear that the MAME developers are doing the majority of the work in discovering how these things work, demonstrated by this case and the clear lack of effort in actually supporting the original game.

This isn't the only example, plenty of times people have reported to us that Ultracade has the same emulation bugs as MAME in several of their games (several of the Capcom titles IIRC), pointing clearly that MAME is being used at the very least as a definitive reference for how they work; other emulators which aren't based on the information in MAME have their own sets of bugs, because they've been reverse engineered and figured out by different people, who came to different conclusions so it's quite clear what their reference is because no 2 people think in exactly the same way.

Of course, some people have simply concluded that this means Ultracade is MAME, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim at this time, and you would get the same outcome if you simply used all the information in MAME without checking it yourself which assuming the guys behind Ultracade are of good integrity is probably what was done.


--- End quote ---

This is extremely interesting, and maybe all the questions will be answered when the Foley/Ultracade issue goes to court.  If it all ends up in tears, will there be any knock on effect for the emulation community as a whole?

Haze:

--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 06, 2010, 10:57:37 am ---Haze, it isn't that we do not enjoy what MAME has given, (I am not sure Saint's book would not have had the popularity which MAME has brought) that is echoed a million times throughout the world.  So many platforms enjoy MAME from computers to hand-held devices.  Games that we loved are wonderfully presented, right on our desktops.  Documentation and examples for those future developers who will benefit from the many programmers out there is just completely amazing.  It is not clear why MAME cannot be used for commercial use.

--- End quote ---

As outlined elsewhere in this thread, there is a significant difference between things being done for profit, and non-profit.  MAME is non-commercial, and non-profit, and we wish it to remain that way.  I believe that by stating people can use the information freely we're being fair; the value of MAME is in the information, not the code.  You could probably reimplement everything in MAME in a fraction of the time it took to discover everything.  I believe the current arrangement to be balanced and fair, it means there is no pressure on the developers, and at the same time gives people an incredibly useful reference when they need it.


--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 06, 2010, 10:57:37 am ---Is MAME a self-imposed repository for information like the Library Of Congress designation (apologies Haze but mame.net and mamedev.org is registered in the USA)?  Is MAME considered public domain or does it have agreements with other entities like Ultracade?  Do companies connected to archived product have a legal right to use such code in their commercial endeavors?

My questions are to be deemed hypthetical (and I'm not asking Haze to answer.  I'm just throwing this out here for general discussion), but in a world where MAME is compared to the MP3 player, perhaps MAME should become a commercial entity.  If we all paid to use MAME it would at least provide funds for more PCB purchases.

--- End quote ---

Aaron is in the US and registered the site etc.  That doesn't really reflect development.  Honestly I don't see why MAME should be a commercial entity, or be available for commercial use, it just adds further complications which get in the way of development; this isn't our jobs, it isn't meant to be.  You can hypothesise as much as you want, I simply see no REAL benefit.


--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 06, 2010, 10:57:37 am ---Haze mentioned Ultarcade and how game packs had mirrored behaviors like in MAME.

--- Quote from: Haze on February 06, 2010, 08:44:17 am ---
Alternatively David Foley / Ultracade could have attempted to reverse engineer the hardware themselves and emulate the original.  Did they?  No.  They relied on the information that MAME had already discovered, and simply emulated the same bootleg supported by MAME that 'works'.  (I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with this as we state that the information is free to use, even if the implementation isn't)

So even with what are meant to be legitimately licensed games it is quite clear that the MAME developers are doing the majority of the work in discovering how these things work, demonstrated by this case and the clear lack of effort in actually supporting the original game.

This isn't the only example, plenty of times people have reported to us that Ultracade has the same emulation bugs as MAME in several of their games (several of the Capcom titles IIRC), pointing clearly that MAME is being used at the very least as a definitive reference for how they work; other emulators which aren't based on the information in MAME have their own sets of bugs, because they've been reverse engineered and figured out by different people, who came to different conclusions so it's quite clear what their reference is because no 2 people think in exactly the same way.

Of course, some people have simply concluded that this means Ultracade is MAME, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim at this time, and you would get the same outcome if you simply used all the information in MAME without checking it yourself which assuming the guys behind Ultracade are of good integrity is probably what was done.

--- End quote ---

This is extremely interesting, and maybe all the questions will be answered when the Foley/Ultracade issue goes to court.  If it all ends up in tears, will there be any knock on effect for the emulation community as a whole?

--- End quote ---

The cases seem very specific, I doubt we'll find out what license there was with Seibu over Seibu Cup Soccer / Goal '92, and unless somebody pulls Ultracade apart and finds that it IS Mame then their source code is never going to be available for reference either, so I doubt the current legal case will reveal all that much.

Naturally various people on the MAME team are disappointed that doubts have been raised over the legaility of Ultracade, as it's always been a useful product to point people at when they want a legal option for fully licensed multi-game, non-mame cabinets, and until the legal situation is cleared up we can't recommend purchasing the units at all as there is every chance they might be declared just as illegal and unlicensed as running a MAME cab with unlicensed roms.

Will there be a knock on effect?  I doubt it.  The developers will continue to do what the developers do.  If one day MAME emulates Ultracade, there will be comments indicating that it was / wasn't licensed, and it becomes part of history like everything else.  The 0-day warezing of those Taito PC based arcade games is more likely to have negative effects on emulation and arcade scene as a whole because those are new games that Taito are actively marketing.  That has nothing to do with MAME, and isn't condoned by anybody on the team tho.  It always amazes me when people approach the team / developers about cracking the latest arcade games, then get angry / surprised when we say we're not interested. 

ark_ader:

--- Quote from: J.Max on February 03, 2010, 12:09:29 pm ---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.








--- End quote ---

I have been reviewing my college assignment based on the implications of reverse engineering and the DMCA and I was puzzled by the Sony vs Connectix ruling when I found (during my researching) that because the ruling falls under fair use, the DMCA doesn't consider fair use as an exception, thus bringing the court ruling into question.

"Sony Sues Connectix and Bleem
Sony has used DMCA to sue competitors who created emulation software that permits gamers to play PlayStation console games on PCs. In 1999, Sony sued Connectix, the maker of the Virtual Game Station, a PlayStation emulator for Macintosh computers. Sony also sued Bleem, the leading vendor of PlayStation emulator software for Windows PCs.

In both cases, Sony claimed that competitors had violated the DMCA by engaging in unlawful circumvention, even though the development of interoperable software has been recognized by the courts as a fair use under copyright law. Because courts have suggested that the DMCA trumps fair use, however, the DMCA has become a new legal weapon with which to threaten those who rely on reverse engineering to create competing products.

Neither Connectix nor Bleem were able to bear the high costs of litigation against Sony and pulled their products off the market. No similar emulation products have been introduced, effectively forcing gamers to use Sony console hardware if they want to play the PlayStation games they have purchased."  Link

So under the previous posting that considered reverse engineering as an exception and siting the Sony vs Connectix have won, why can I not find a commercial PSX emulator?  Thus another reason why Mame is not for commercial use.  Would Mame then be classed as a competing product if it was made available commercially?

So you have rulings by the courts that say it is legal to reverse engineer a product, then you have the DMCA challenging it.

I find this whole legal process involving reverse engineering completely baffling!

Ginsu Victim:

Haze:

--- Quote ---So under the previous posting that considered reverse engineering as an exception and siting the Sony vs Connectix have won, why can I not find a commercial PSX emulator?  Thus another reason why Mame is not for commercial use.  Would Mame then be classed as a competing product if it was made available commercially?

--- End quote ---

Why can't you find a (current) commercial PSX emulator?

probably because nobody cares enough about the PSX anymore, and there is no demand for one, thus nobody has made one?

As for the (current) modern systems, they're several times more complex, and the emulators are significantly more demanding than a PSX emulator was back in the day, also in the case of the GC / Wii the discs can't be read in a PC, for the PS3 not many people have bluray drives (and it's not really viable to emulate on a PC)  Even the free PS2 emulators are very demanding, and have low compatibility.  For the 360, again the hardware is too complex to consider emulating, going back a bit further you have the original Xbox which is basically PC-like hardware, but despite that making it sound easy to emulate it's quite the opposite.  For other older systems like the Dreamcast, again you've got the issue that the discs were GD-Roms, and don't work on a PC.

The PSX was a special case at that time, it had a lot of exclusive games that weren't available on the PC, it was viable to emulate on a modest system at the time, and the discs would work in a PC with no messing about other than the actual emulator.

Emulation is more of a hobbist thing anyway, commercial ones are few and far between.  You will find some that are non-free but offer demo versions and can be purchased from the authors but for the most part unless you're licensing some games, you don't really have much worth selling unless it runs games directly from the original media, as the PSX emus like the ones in these cases did at the time.  Commercial products in general have to be polished, easy to use, all-in-1 solutions.  Emulation is for the most part a technical issue that, unless the emulators are prepackaged in a friendly compilation (like the Taito Classics stuff) they don't really make for a good commercial product anyway.  Selling a dreamcast emulator with instructions on how the user can wire up a dreamcast GD-ROM to read the discs isn't really going to appeal to a commercial audience, who will wonder why they can't just use the Dreamcast!  It does appeal to hobbyists tho.

But yeah, show somebody a PSX game now and they'll wonder why it looks so bad.... Early 3D doesn't age well even if you tart it up in an emu.  Nobody *wants* a commercial PSX emulator.  Not even Sony seem to care that much about backwards compatibility anymore (only the first generation of PS3s supported the PS2 games in hardware, and support went downhill from there)  They'll sell some of their old classics (a very limited choice) on the PSN store, but I don't know if they're emulated or ported, and beyond that there simply isn't a market.  Heck all my original PSX discs are falling apart!  Those black-backed discs seem to have a shorter life than standard discs from the period..  I wouldn't want to work on the support line for a commercial PSX emulator if people were trying to use it with discs in this condition.


  

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version