Main > Main Forum

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

<< < (20/29) > >>

jcterzin:
the problem with free play is getting people off of them. I emailed SEGA earlier today about using their Out Run pcb as a rom, as I have that game too. We shall see what they say. If they dont care then its just a matter of MAME... or a way around MAME.

Haze:

--- Quote from: J.Max on February 03, 2010, 11:02:24 pm ---Nintendo was just the best example that I could think of at the time.  You're right about that, obviously...I just couldn't think of any other company suing (or even sending out C&Ds).  Maybe Incredible Technology is a better example?

--- End quote ---

Actually Namco are pretty aggressive, they've shut down Pacman art sites, and other fan sites in the past, and taken up issue with Foley / Ultracade, yet they've always left MAME alone..

While it's true that not being sued isn't proof that MAME is legal it's pretty good indication of what people feel the likely outcome would be, and how worthwhile / beneficial to the company concerned and industry as a whole such actions would be.  Likewise, at least in the US you should refer to the list of cases that were posted in this thread.

The stance of the development team on the issue is clear, the project has goals, honorable ones, and as long as they stick to them this will be recognized and a healthy relationship will remain.

ark_ader:

--- Quote from: RayB on February 03, 2010, 10:33:12 pm ---And the idea you can lose copyright by not enforcing it is bull. That is true of TRADEMARKS. Because otherwise companies would trademark all sorts of names and not use them, but "lock up" all the good names.

Ark, you're the guy who thought you could copyright a mechanical device, so why are you so vocal in this matter? How about you sit back and learn something.

--- End quote ---

Well not exactly those yokes have printed artwork on them which is owned by Atari.  Someone could have a product similar for the military (as it was once indicated that the military was using a similar device) so the yoke comment was just that a gag to make light of the situation.

I'm a researcher at the moment so I will ask all sorts of questions.  The one regarding cracking encryption and those who were behind it was outside of the USA out of reach of DMCA Jurisdiction.  Thus the posts of those countries that were already covered and the acts of breaking such copyright.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent  That site shows pretty much what is covered and explains copyright.

I just wanted to know if the Mamedavs thought that breaking such encryption was against a code of conduct, and how such actions impacted the companies affected, if any.  Then I got shown the legal email address.  Obviously there must be an clause regarding the preservation of software (The Library Of Congress exception of the DMCA) and copyright law.  Maybe in the future you will have to have something in writing from the government.

What would be interesting to see, is the gross sales of console and portable game software titles that feature retro arcade games, and how well they sold after the year 2000.  That would be a good indicator.  Also if MAME was ever available as a commercial product, would implications would there be?  As in the original post regarded.

This is an interesting thread, I have learnt much by it.

J.Max:
One thing I've wondered about...there are a lot of "classic game compilations" out there which are available commercially.  Now, surely there are only so many ways to emulate a given piece of hardware, so do any of them contain reverse engineered versions of MAME code?

I've often wondered if the dirty little secret of the retrogaming revival is that the commercial stuff is on the backs of the (freeware) emulator programmers.  I know that Sega licensed one of them (I think it was Dgen) to get their Dreamcast Genesis compilation out there, and Haze has said in this thread that he suspects that some comapnies have used MAME decryptions (which is part of the "preservation" aspect of MAME).


--- Quote from: Haze ---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.
--- End quote ---

RayB:

--- Quote from: Blanka on February 04, 2010, 02:40:21 am ---
--- Quote from: RayB on February 03, 2010, 10:33:12 pm ---And the idea you can lose copyright by not enforcing it is bull. That is true of TRADEMARKS.
--- End quote ---
That's not true for trademarks either. If you have a trademark, and not enforce it, but you pay the fee, your trademark stays valid forever. Others can file a similar name though, but they can't sue you if you start using it again.
--- End quote ---
It is.

"Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. "

In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. If a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version