/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4924637
>the operators are to reveal the sources of the ROMs
LOL, how fucking out of touch are these lawers?

>>4924639
They want as much money and blood as possible.

> inb4 a flood of entitled brats gloat about how they deserve free games

Good. ROM sites are cancer.

>>4924648
Yeah, let all those stupid retro games burn while kiketendo resells you their most popular shit virtually.

CHECK THE FUCKING CATALOG

Brainlet here. How would they find out the dudes name just from the website? How did they know who owns it. I dont get it.

>BREAKING NEWS: Metallica files a huge fucking LAWSUIT against Napster
Come on, Nintendo. It isn't the 90s anymore lmao

>>4924657
I did and ffs people should name their fucking threads i fucking missed it the first time you screeching fucking autist

You've made this thread 3 times now. Are you getting paid to do this?

>>4924667
Yes, I'm getting paid by LoveRoms to shill against nintedo.

>>4924667
Some people just don't know what the fuck a catalog is

>>4924637
never heard of it. been getting my roms by torrent since 2003.

literally who cares, nobody needs sites hosting roms when torrents exist

>>4924659
DNS registration records.

>>4924637
Anyone who didn't expect this to have happened 10 or 15 years ago and collected all the ROMs they wanted when it was easy are dumb enough that they deserve to suffer.

They do realize the entire library of like all Nintendo games up to the switch are floating around in torrents and whatnot and will never go away...right? If this was 1998 I could forgive them for being this ignorant.

>>4925284
Scare tactics, my man.

>>4924637
I guess nintendo doesn't know how to do a google search.

>>4925289
Well it worked, downloading entire Nintendo catalog right now

>>4925279
>Anyone who didn't expect this to have happened 10 or 15 years ago and collected all the ROMs they wanted when it was easy are dumb enough that they deserve to suffer.

I've been doing it since nesticle was a thing for this very reason. They won't stop roms as the pandora's box is open, however they will target easy sites to make it more difficult for people to obtain them. Hoard the shit, you can probably fit everything pre 6th gen on a 4tb hard drive. Pre 5th gen in probably 500gb.

It's probably been said, but they are going after low hanging fruit to scare others and fulfil the legal requirements of protecting their IP.

>>4924637
Ok i dont think i ever even heard of loveroms before

>>4924637
>loveroms
literally who

Do you really expect everyone who wants to play the occasional rom to dedicate multiple terabtyes of space for it?

>>4925413

What in the fuck are you talking about?

>>4925424
Took the words right out of my mouth. The average person isn't downloading the entire PS2 library.

>>4925426

Hey retard, when you torrent, you can click on "entire PS2 library" and then tell it to only download one game from it. It only takes up a couple gigs.

>>4925430
I'm aware of that. Why are you telling me?

>>4925430
I think he knows that. Thats the most basic of shit. Hes saying no normal person is even going to download the torrent for the entire ps2 library, they are just going to download a few specific games from emuparadise or someshit. Youre the retard, retard.

>>4925453

That doesn't dispel the fact that torrenting is objectively better. All files available, and not through an ad site trying to give you malware.

>>4925459
Ok whatever, goalpost mover.

>>4925464

That's not a moving goalpost, torrenting is superior in every aspect.

>>4925470
You are right. You red herringed his argument and then moved the goal post.

Fuckin classy

torrenting is good on private trtackers not on public ones.

>>4925473

Those words you're using aren't memes, and you do not understand what they mean.

Nice reaction images to go with your shitposts.

>>4925474
Do you know of any that are open right now? Obviously I'd be looking for /vr/ stuff.

>>4924659
someone is paying something somewhere to keep the site online

ok, where is the torrent

>>4925484
You did hed herring his argument, probably because of stupidity. And in your twisting attached the moving goalpost which was your shitty rebuttal. If you are to stupid to deduce that, i dont know what to tell ya.

>>4925494
archive.org

>>4924639
It's just rhetorics. Neither Nintendo or the lawyers think they actually can stop spreading of roms. It's about loads of money and sending a message, and I don't see how Nintendo will lose this lawsuit.

>>4925513

No, that's not a red herring, telling someone he's a retard because he thinks you need to dedicate terabytes of space while torrenting is a direct counter, which you went ahead and said in >>4925453.

No goalposts were moved at any point. Torrenting is better and no changes have been made.

The words you shit out of your mouth don't mean what you think they do. Also you don't know the proper way to download roms and isos. How embarrassing.

stuff in archive.org is outdated and there is no japanese stuff.

Ah, Nintendo, never change. "Why are people pirating our games? We made it so easy and affordable to buy them!"

Ok when are they going to sue the japanese ebay sellers for selling JAP games cheaper than they are on nintendos own store?

Thing is, if I were to buy an actual NES or SNES cartridge on Ebay, it would be "legal" but Nintendo still wouldn't get any money from the sale anyway. Therefore it matters not a jot whether I download the ROM or buy the cartridge. Either way, they don't make anything off a 30 year old game.

>>4925683

What basis would they have for doing that? Ebay sellers aren't retailers.

>>4925691

Anon, Nintendo released the NES and SNES classics. Yes Nintendo is required to compete against their decades old sales in order to sell the NES/SNES classic, but legally they are not required to compete against illegal emulation in order to sell their classic consoles.

>>4925712
>Anon, Nintendo released the NES and SNES classics

However, they include only a limited number of games and they're just an emulation box, it's not the real hardware and doesn't even have all the capabilities of the real thing. For example, can you use Family BASIC or the SNES Mouse with them? No you can not.

So actually it's not competing against their decades old sales because it's less of a product than the original consoles were.

>>4925718
>However, they include only a limited number of games and they're just an emulation box
Legally, irrelevant. Nintendo only needs to complain about the games that are on the classic systems.

Your complaints about console quality are not real arguments for or against the legality of downloading those games. Point of fact, if you are dissatisfied with the quality of the consoles, your only legal recourse is to buy the decades old cart.

>>4925726
>Point of fact, if you are dissatisfied with the quality of the consoles, your only legal recourse is to buy the decades old cart

You can do that and it may be technically legal, either way Nintendo doesn't make any money from it.

>why does a company protect their IP from people who had nothing to do with the creation, production, marketing, release, or anything to do with said IP
really makes you think

>>4925731

No, anon, Nintendo makes money from the classics.

You don't seem to get it, the reason intellectual property law exists is explicitly to reduce competition from outside sources on intellectual works, in this case creative works. A situation where Nintendo is required to compete against their decades old sales vs a situation where they are required to compete against their decades old sales AND free copies of their work online are two entirely different situations.

Nintendo is systematically denied more profit in one of those situations than the other.

>>4925712
>Nintendo released the NES and SNES classics

Nintendo itself using emulation to sell their IPs is bad faith.

>>4925741
Well, if you care to think about it, current Nintendo really had nothing to do with NES-era games. The dev teams responsible moved on a long time ago and in some cases (like with Gunpei Yokoi) are no longer with us.

>>4925758

Well, length of copyright is a related issue, but at the same time I'm replying to someone who is universally claiming that he doesn't owe Nintendo money because he has options, so it doesn't matter if he chooses the illegal option. His claim isn't true.

Claiming that his illegal option shouldn't be illegal by this point might be (is) valid, but that's not what he said.

>>4925743
It's even worse faith when they've literally been caught using ROMs taken from websites.

>>4925760
>but at the same time I'm replying to someone who is universally claiming that he doesn't owe Nintendo money because he has options

That is correct though. You're not owed money for an inferior product ala >>4925718. Why are we obligated to reward Nintendo for putting out a shitty emulation box without all the capabilities of the original hardware? No, screw that. If they put out a product that was actually worth paying for, perhaps people might be more generous.

>>4925773
>That is correct though. You're not owed money for an inferior product ala >>4925718

Yes you do, you either need to acquire a cart or buy the classic. Factual law, and for good reason. The game you're trying to find excuses to acquire for free wouldn't exist if you could legally get it for free. Nobody would be stupid enough to produce it in the first place.

Your generosity has nothing to do with morality or practicality.

>>4925779
>Yes you do, you either need to acquire a cart
You can do that. It may be technically legal, but Nintendo doesn't make any money off of it. At that point, it becomes irrelevant whether you download a ROM or buy a used game.

Whats the best way to play the MOTHER series?

Guys, they do this every couple years. Some company puffs out its chest, everyone gets scared, the other 50 ROM sites and 50000 torrents out there stay up, another 50000 "new" ones pop up. Rinse, lather, repeat.

>>4925795
Your best luck is to buy a homebrew cart of 1 and 3 with English translations, as for 2/Earthbound I recommend emulating it, the prices for that game are ludicrous and I say that as someone who bought an original cart about 20 years ago

>>4925807
What about emulating all of them on a GBA emulator?

>>4925812
You're not going to play the shitty Mother 1+2 ports are you?

>>4925812
Why not emulate them on a snes emulator?

>>4925791

Wrong
>You don't seem to get it, the reason intellectual property law exists is explicitly to reduce competition from outside sources on intellectual works, in this case creative works. A situation where Nintendo is required to compete against their decades old sales vs a situation where they are required to compete against their decades old sales AND free copies of their work online are two entirely different situations.

You -really- don't seem to get it. Let's take the R4, for instance. It's a device that lets you pirate games on the DS, including retro games under emulation. About six months after it hit the market (from China) copy-cat devices began being sold under the same name, they even ran on the same software maintained by the R4 guys. This destroyed the device's marketability because it meant that if you ordered an R4, you were more likely to get a knockoff that wasn't 100% compatible with the R4 software or might have mechanical issues (most common complaint was the SD card slot would malfunction). The device intended to circumvent copyright laws was itself a victim of copyright infringement and went out of business as a result. The customer who bought such a device was then forced to buy another device, the CycloDS, in order to get the product he originally paid for. Nobody would give money to the R4 guys anymore and their support forum was overwhelmed with people who unwittingly bought defective products the company couldn't possibly fix.

Competition from just anyone in the intellectual property sphere is a real threat to the function of anyone making intellectual property and first sale doctrine is not provide an excuse for ignoring IP laws.

>>4925813
m...maybe I didnt know they were shit

>>4925814
You can emulate MOTHER 1 on a snes emulator?

>>4925818

No, of course not, he means NES.

>>4925817

is your dad a lawyer or something

>>4925818
the audio on them is extremely butchered, I would just recommend downloading Tomato's translation or the 1990 NoA translation, whether you prefer accuracy or "what if?"

>>4925828

No, I just don't like it when someone steals shit and then claims they aren't stealing. It's hypocritical. I wouldn't even mind if he just said he's stealing it because he wants to. He doesn't have a reason anyone should recognize, though.

>>4925817
That's the fault of uninformed consumers buying shitty Chinese products. You can't legislate stupidity out of existence.

So I snatched No-Intro collections of NES, SNES and N64. Just in case. Plus some translated roms from Cylum's sets.
Thanks Nintendo for reigniting my interest in emulation.

>>4925758
This also. Nobody has answered it either. You can make the same argument of Disney. Why should present-day Disney be entitled to profit off of cartoons made in the 1930s? The people responsible for making them are all dead now. How is that even remotely justifiable or ethical?

Stuff like VC and the SNES Mini are cynical Netflix-style profit taking ventures to milk nostalgiabucks. They're not done out of love of old games and it clearly shows.

>>4925741
>reducing competition is a good thing
Nintendo has to actually give a shit to provide a better product than ROM sites, oh the humanity!
It's not the consumer's duty to sympathise with their position, it's our prerogative to use a superior and more convenient service.
Artists cope with the changing nature of distribution in various ways. Publishers put their games on easily acessible, DRM-free digital platforms. Some artists put their work on torrent sites and ask for donations, this seems to work well for them and secures long-term goodwill. Nintendo has many options, if they gave a fuck. They don't and are ridiculously out of touch.

They still produce Famiclones in China using clones of the NES chipset. The original chipsets are still produced (or, well, a clone of them anyway) yet Nintendo themselves can't offer anything but a generic software-based emulation box with the NES Mini?

>>4925883
Are they making these shitty plug and plays themselves or are they farming it out to some no nothing third party company? Sega does that.

>>4924661
more like LAWLSUIT amirite?

Loveroms was one of the only places in the net that still had a lot of NTSC-J PS2 ISOs.
It'll be missed.

>>4925883
>only has 30 games
>no cartridge slot and no way to add your own games
>no expansion port so you can't attach accessories like the Family BASIC keyboard
And they expect you to use this over a free emulator?

>>4925918
I'm sure the target audience for this thing really cares about obscure Japan-only peripherals.

So I'll spell it out for you. The thing is aimed at manchildren who want a quick nostalgia fix and that is all. Do you understand that?

>>4925918
I don't know why the hell they'd do this over repros and shit

>>4925930
Like someone else said, there's still chink clones of the NES chipset being produced so it's not as if those chips are no longer still available. It would be an issue with the SNES chipset though.

This guy misses the point entirely. I very much would like to see a major reform of IP laws. In fact I also want to find where Disney's lawyers live and publish their home addresses and phone numbers.

>>4925845

It is logically impossible to be informed on the scenario I just posted. We are talking about companies legally mimicking other companies. And yes, legislation does in fact prevent this, the only thing protecting companies in first world nations from this is IP laws.

Like, actually go to India or Brazil sometime. These places simply can't produce media that requires a budget because you can steal the latest Western media for pennies from street corner venders. Only places with IP laws produce the media that people want to watch/listen/play/read/whatever.

>>4925875
>illegal competition is a good thing
>It's not the consumer's duty to sympathise with their position
Hence the laws taking the options away from them in the first place. Things have broken down in the past 15 years.
>They don't and are ridiculously out of touch.
Both classic systems are very popular and very much in demand, to the point of price gouging scalpers.

>>4925848

There is no answer. Copyright should, at the very least, be lost when the copyright holder dies. I'd say it either be when he dies or ten years, whichever is longer, and in the case of collaborative works the company has to announce who the chief creative force in the game is ahead of time (and it cannot be the fucking 16 year old intern) so we can peg it to his lifetime.

>>4925958
>Like, actually go to India or Brazil sometime. These places simply can't produce media that requires a budget because
Those countries don't produce any media anyone wants to see. If people in Brazil would rather watch Hollywood movies than indigenous productions, that's the fault of their native film industry for not producing anything worthwhile.

>>4924637
whatever, already got everything I needed

>>4925973

Anon, that is the product of IP laws. By definition, media wants to be made in the place where it will be most rewarded. Brazil knows full well it is culturally just tagging along in terms of mass culture.

A bunch of people are really salty about ROMs in here.

Much like any other person or entity with copyrighted property, Nintendo are not obligated to sell anything they have copyrighted. Yes, there are still damages for infringing copyright even if the holder is not selling what they have copyrighted.

You are not Robin Hood for infringing their copyright anyway.

I mean Jesus fucking shit on a plate, I pirate shit all the time but I don't get all sanctimonious about it. Nobody (not even me) is entitled to pirate and play these games just because they want to. I do it anyway but let's not delude ourselves about what it is that we're doing.

>>4925958
>Only places with IP laws produce the media that people want to watch/listen/play/read/whatever

Don't you know that Shakespeare, Bach, and Beethoven lived in a world with no IP laws?

>>4925985

You know that intellectual property was a nonissue in those years because literally all three of those artists were paid by the crown/prince for their effort any virtually nobody else was going to do it? You didn't "publish" works in those years, you just made something for the sovereign.

>>4925985
>>4925991

Also the concept of IP laws was developed by the Dutch, a place where monarchy was much weaker.

>>4925985
^This. You can't legislate creativity into existence. If your product is worthwhile, people will gladly pay you for it.

>>4925951
Lawful Evil.

I wonder how much teeth gnashing goes on at Ninty's law firm over the fact that the Internet Archive can legally host ROMs of their old games?

>>4926003
>>4925994
That may be true or it may not. IP laws are mostly based around the Hobbesian notion that human nature is inherently negative and if given the opportunity, people will always take your stuff for free instead of compensating you for it. Whether you think that is true or not is an argument that can't be proven either way.

>>4926019
One of the inherent defects of IP laws is that they do not generally benefit the individual but only corporate entities. Why? Because in order to take legal action against copyright infringement, it takes money. The individual artist does not have that, he cannot do much to stop people from pirating his stuff. Only if you have Disney's resources is it possible.

none of your opinions are valid, because none of you have a law degree
you're all retarded. you're like children discussing why bedtime is 9PM
YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE DECISIONS

>>4926028
So are Miyamoto, Sakurai, and the like against piracy or is it just the corporates that go after it?

Nintendo is a comically out of touch company who still thinks it's 1995. They could create a Netflix or Spotify-style streaming service for their old games, but they don't.

>>4925982
There is such a thing as caring about the future of file-sharing and internet surveillance. I know it might blow your mind, but some people are concerned about effects that may take place after their lifetime.

The point is, the only effective way to combat common piracy is to introduce extreme measures against individual liberty and privacy. Going after the file hosts is limited in its results, since you only need a single country that doesn't enforce copyright laws to get it going.

I almost certainly won't experience laws that will realistically prevent me from enjoying ROMs in my lifetime. I got this shit on multiple drives already. But the future is still depressing and worth giving a shit about. And It's possible to fundamentally change IP laws, even if the political will to achieve it seems unlikely. I'm in a EU country so obviously I follow the legislature and people who give a shit about it with interest, and try to spread it.

You seem to be arguing that because pirating is in your-self interest, you can't advocate it as a serious ethical statement or political issue. This is incoherent to me, every ethical and political argument is about issues related to someone's self-interest.

>>4926031
I decide I want a rom, i get that rom. That's all the decision making I need.

Not surprising coming from the company that spergs out over fangames.

>>4926050
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/285990/Fanmade_Pokemon_Uranium_and_AM2R_cut_from_The_Game_Awards_nominees.php

They can't take the idea that fans could potentially make a better product with their franchises than they themselves.

>>4926041

Fuck, imagine a service that was $10 a month that let you play even anything pre N64 with save states. You could add things like leaderboards and such.

If the switch has the powa even N64 could be nice. Of course, this would limit them re-releasing ocarina and such so they might not do it.

I pretty much refuse to buy anything on VC but if it were a netflix style deal, I would do it.

>>4926075
Fuck that shit, i rather them sell the games for 5-10 dollars than have a Netflix deal

>>4926075
>I pretty much refuse to buy anything on VC but if it were a netflix style deal, I would do it.

If you could download the ROM and play it however you chose such as a fan-made emulator, then I don't think a lot of people would have a problem with that. Personally I still don't think it's justifiable for Nintendo to profit in such a way from 30 year old games, but that's another story and it will take a significant reappraisal of current IP laws to fix that.

But until and if we can fix IP laws, this would be the most fair and reasonable idea. As it is, Nintendo are clinging to a 25 year old business model where they sell you a closed, proprietary emulation box like the SNES Mini. That is comically ridiculous in this day and age.

>>4926075
>>4926096

I'd rather they just do periodic 5 year collections, charge $40 for them.

I wouldn't buy unless they added GCN, it's time that system got in on this kind of rerelease cycle.

>>4926046
Another argument is that IP laws are supposed to give the copyright holder exclusive right to profit from his work. What it means is that third parties cannot sell IP and profit from it without the consent of the owner BUT nothing is said about giving away IP for free. Under that line of reasoning, pirate sites are doing nothing illegal as long as they are not selling copyrighted IP and profiting from it.

>>4926147

The problem with this is the aforementioned billion year lease corporations have on an IP.

The goal of IP laws is to incentivize IPs being made for profit, the IP then expires and that group then goes on to create new IPs. This doesn't happen anymore. By rights, Batman should have entered public domain generations ago. Same problem with video games.

>>4926130
I've when wanting them to release GC games for years, been wanting TTYD a lot as a downloadable

>>4926159

GCN is totally excusable for emulation right now, because Nintendo has put zero effort into making that available to the public for a decade now.

>>4926031
>none of your opinions are valid, because none of you have a law degree
Is like saying I can't boil an egg because I'm not a professional chef.
>YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE DECISIONS
But apparently Disney can manipulate laws to their benefit. If they can make said decisions, so can you and me.

>>4926167
That, and 6th gen prices are going through the fucking roof

>>4926151
>By rights, Batman should have entered public domain generations ago
You're confusing trademarks with copyrights. A trademark lasts forever so long as it's enforced, while a copyright expires after a finite time, but does not expire from non-enforcement. DC can create new Batman content all they want, it's just that old Batman content would become PD in time. By the same token, Disney may create all the new Donald Duck cartoons in the world, but stuff made in the 1940s becomes PD.

>>4924637
I can't imagine courts being too sympathetic towards a multibillion dollar international corporation that knowingly allowed the site to operate for over a decade without any legal intervention. It could be interpreted as them intentionally allowing "damages" to accumulate for the sake of a larger lawsuit.

>>4925958

I'm the Brazil guy from the other thread. Here's the thing about Brazil. The reason our movies suck is that they are made with taxpayer money. There is no Hollywood here, no real movie industry. It's just hacks with a Cinema degree who know some insider who can get them the spot. Brazil makes a lot of government-funded movies, even our famous Youtubers star in movies, unimaginably bad movies. Nobody watches them.

And they are paid with our taxes. The very taxes that make legal media consumption so expensive in the first place. The prices of books, DVDs, movie tickets, consoles, games are obscene.

This is why Brazilians pirate so much. Based on what I've read, the situation is pretty much the same in China, in the rest of Latin America, in Eastern Europe -- everywhere, in short, where the general legal and economic realities make legal media prohibitively expensive. Basically, the more socialistic the country, the more people pirate. The libertarians are completely right when they say that socialism sucks.

And here's the funny thing: big media corporations are effectively socialistic. They receive government benefits. They lobby for stricter IP laws. They exert a monopolistic control on legal media distribution that is akin to the control the government exerts in other areas of our life.

In the end what you have is one huge monopolistic Leviathan of Big State and Big Business. Go to public school, pop your SSRI, watch your Netflix, listen to your Spotify, be a good boy.

Big Media is in league with Monsanto and Big Pharma in lobbying for stricter IP laws in the US and abroad. It is because of patents held by Big Pharma that a doctor will prescribe newfangled drugs with mysterious side-effects when aspirin might do the trick. It is because of patents held by Monsanto that small farmers must pay royalties when using certain seeds.

This is the stuff of William Gaddis novels. IP laws in their current state are absurd.

>>4926192
>>4925973
China is a dictatorship where the government has total control over what media can and cannot be shown, but people still would much rather watch the latest Marvel flick than anything from China's indigenous film industry.

>>4926192
But I have typed enough about this already. I'll take a break. In short, socialism sucks, monopolies suck, IP laws suck, legal positivism sucks. Be generous with your money if you can, support the creators and all that, but let's be real about this.

In short, the more you examine the subject of IP the more iniquitous the whole thing starts to seem. And yet even when I try to punctiliously explain the nuances of the matter people are still sanctimonious about "piracy". Whatever. Best regards.

>>4926213
>And yet even when I try to punctiliously explain the nuances of the matter people are still sanctimonious about "piracy"
Most likely, said sanctimoniousness exists in your head and is your own selective interpretation of other people's arguments. You are reading into them what you want to read into them.

>It's another company makes a petulant fuss over technology episode.

>>4926202
But that ties into the argument about socialism killing creativity. China's native film industry doesn't make anything but bland propaganda flicks and historical dramas since the government controls its content.

>>4926215

Well, there are always some finger-wagging posts here and there.

But most of the reaction to my posts here has been positive, so I shouldn't be complaining. And I'm being a little too obsessed about this subject, yeah. I'll take a break.

Arguably the same could be said about Hollywood. Due to increasingly lunatic-tier IP laws and monopolies, nobody can make anything but capeshit and "reboot of X obscure 80s TV show".

>>4926192
I'm a pirate and I do it because I can. Simple as
If being arrested because of it was a real threat I'd be either watching open tv or getting drunk outside. No biggie

>>4926202
>>4926217
Are you guys retarded or something? Most top box office films are China made over there.

So let me reiterate my core arguments:

1. Nintendo believes they are entitled to profit from ancient games the present-day company mostly had nothing to do with. This in of itself is ethically questionable.
2. Nintendo offers emulation services that are inferior to fan-made ones, and at the same time openly condemn the latter. The only explanation for this is that they clearly can't deal with the idea that some neckbeard working in his basement can write a better emulator than they do.
3. Nintendo only makes a limited selection of games available. Services like Netflix offer nearly unlimited access to all the movies you want.
4. Nintendo have actually been caught using ROMs take from download sites.

>>4926246
>1. Nintendo believes they are entitled to profit from ancient games the present-day company mostly had nothing to do with. This in of itself is ethically questionable.

For example, it would be unethical to pirate Office 365 since the people working on it deserve to be paid. However, there is absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about doing same with a 1980s version of MS Word because it has no connection to anything or anyone currently employed by Microsoft.

>>4926050
Even Sega figured out fanboys could make a better Sonic game than Sonic Team

>>4926264
Have you actually used Office 365? It's a total broken piece of garbage and Mikro$haft deserves nothing for it.

>>4925958
>Like, actually go to India or Brazil sometime. These places simply can't produce media that requires a budget because you can steal the latest Western media for pennies from street corner venders.

I forgot to comment on this one specifically.

No: the reason is that opening and running a small business in Brazil is a nightmare. Byzantine regulations and you get taxed to all hell. Not exactly a creativity-fostering environment.

We actually have strict IP laws (not that that's a good thing). And Brazilians do buy a lot of physical games and on Steam. But physical games are very pricey.

And now I'll stop rambling. I did drink a bit too much coffee today.

>>4925518
yea everything up on archive.org has a "lock" symbol and you can't download

>>4926246
>1. Nintendo believes they are entitled to profit from ancient games the present-day company mostly had nothing to do with. This in of itself is ethically questionable.
Well, that kind of ties into the whole doctrine of corporate personage which is something I don't accept.

>>4926285
?
https://archive.org/details/No-Intro-Collection_2016-01-03

>>4926285
?
https://archive.org/details/No-Intro-Collection_2016-01-03_Fixed

>>4924659
Registrar... DNS...

It's basic internet stuff.

>>4926297
>https://archive.org/details/No-Intro-Collection_2016-01-03_Fixed
Nice thanks. No Saturn or PS1 eh?

If I were the owners of the website, I could dismantle most of Nintendo's legal arguments in about 10 minutes of argument in court. I could also invoke the idea of jury nullification and put forth the proposal that existing IP laws are unjust and unfair and should be thrown out.

>>4926315
>jury null
stopped reading there

>>4926321
It took you that long?

>>4926324
yes. usually i will read a post even if it is cringe because sometimes there is a point behind the post, but in this case, it is nonsense and jury nullification was the indicator

>>4926308
No, because those are handled by Redump, not No-Intro.

>>4926315
>If I were the owners of the website, I could dismantle most of Nintendo's legal arguments in about 10 minutes of argument in court
Yeh but chances are they're some completely uneducated neckbeards whose entire existence is shaped by videos of Youtube celebrities.

https://truthout.org/articles/jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict/

Courts hate this by the way and don't want you to know about it.

>>4926315
The fact that Nintendo took 10 or something years to take any legal action in of itself makes their entire case shaky.

>>4926353
False. Stop talking about things you clearly have zero knowledge about.

>>4926356
What knowledge do you have? Post a timestamped picture of your degree from Cornell Law or gtfo.

>>4925712
>Nintendo released the NES and SNES classics
But they didn't supply enough of the product to meet demand. Potential consumers were lost regardless if they seeked an illegal alternative or not

>>4926360
Copyrights aren't trademarks; you don't lose them through inactivity and you can be as selective as you want about enforcing them. This is about as black-and-white as you can get from a legal perspective, no matter how hard Internet neckbeards wish it weren't.

>>4926315
>If I were the owners of the website, I could dismantle most of Nintendo's legal arguments in about 10 minutes of argument in court

They are claiming between $150,000 and $2 million in damages. If it were me, I would challenge them to show exactly where LoveROMs has cost them more than $2 million in lost revenue.

>>4926375
>and you can be as selective as you want about enforcing them

And that's the problem. They don't _have_ to enforce them, but then they lose the right to cry and whine when people oblige and pirate said unenforced IP. Although you can say they have a legal justification for it, they can't do it without completely embarrassing themselves and creating a PR disaster in the process.

>>4926394
Well...that's kind of appeal to emotion, but it is certainly possible. Metallica faced a massive PR backlash from the Napster suits even though from a legal standpoint, their case was justified.

>>4926394
Doesn't change the fact that said pirates will get destroyed in court for copyright infringement should Nintendo decide to prosecute.

>>4926402
>Doesn't change the fact that said pirates will get destroyed in court for copyright infringement

And your proof of this is how? As I said, Nintendo's arguments in this case can be dismantled in about 10 minutes in particular >>4926382

What you're arguing is "I think said pirates will get destroyed in court because I personally dislike them and I want it to happen" than anything. That is the gist of your argument.

>>4926406

>>4923242
See here. They're arguing for the loss of theoretical revenue that may not actually exist.

>>4924975
Also if it went to court, you could quote this and make the argument that the entire idea of IP laws in of themselves are ethically unsound.

>>4926406
No, my argument is based in actual copyright law. Yours is based entirely in appeal to emotions. They committed willful infringement; damages may or may not be reduced, but they will inevitably lose or settle. Most likely the latter, if they're smart.

>>4926416
>No, my argument is based in actual copyright law. Yours is based entirely in appeal to emotions.

What exactly is wrong with "appealing to emotion", if the emotion springs from the fact that the law in question is perceived to be unjust? Are you a legal positivist? Is a law moral by mere virtue of being a law?

>>4926416
>No, my argument is based in actual copyright law
What argument was that?
>Yours is based entirely in appeal to emotions
You accuse me of this, yet at the same time you said you hope said pirates would be destroyed in court because you don't like them and want them to burn. Is that not appeal to emotion on your part?

>>4926425
Apparently he is because he became incredibly butthurt at the mention of jury nullification. Read the Bible sometime--you may know that it's one of the foundational elements of Western civilization. Jesus himself opposed legal positivism because he said you did not need to rigidly obey the Jewish laws to he saved. In short, he said doing what is ethically correct trumps what is written on a piece of paper.

>>4926425
I'm not talking about morality at all. Just legality.
>Are you a legal positivist?
No, I'm a realist.

>>4926426
>What argument was that?
That Nintendo has a more or less airtight case against these ROM sites. They committed willful copyright infringement, and Nintendo has full legal standing to take them to the cleaners for it.
>You accuse me of this, yet at the same time you said you hope said pirates would be destroyed in court because you don't like them and want them to burn. Is that not appeal to emotion on your part?
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't like copyright law as it currently stands; I'm simply aware of what the law actually says, unlike you.

>>4926436
>I don't like copyright law as it currently stands
You criticize current IP laws, yet you support their enforcement on Nintendo's part. Your argument is basically "The law is shit, but it's the law so deal with it." You're choosing to be part of the problem rather than the solution.

And for what it's worth, I don't think their case is airtight at all. In fact it has a lot of holes in it, particularly the fact that they can't actually demonstrate that LoveROMs cost them $2 million in lost revenue.

>>4926446
Who said I supported them? I think they're complete fuckdicks. Hell, I even linked to a ROM collection earlier in this very thread.
>"The law is shit, but it's the law so deal with it."
This is precisely what I'm saying. You're welcome to challenge them in court if you want, I'll be rooting for you. But you'll still lose.
>the solution
The solution is to get the law changed. I'm in full support of any serious efforts to make that happen, but until then we have to deal with it.

>>4926453
It would be very easy to "prove" it to an extent that it would be hard to argue against in a courtroom.

>>4926453
Arguably, you could point out that their case is shaky because most of the people involved in making NES-era games aren't involved with Nintendo anymore, therefore nothing is being taken away from the original programmers, graphic artists, etc in terms of lost wages.

Unless of course you believe in corporate personage which in of itself is a questionable doctrine and one I personally don't accept.

>>4926461
>This is precisely what I'm saying. You're welcome to challenge them in court if you want, I'll be rooting for you. But you'll still lose
But that again is appeal to emotion. You're saying "You'll lose because I don't like you and I want it to happen."
>The solution is to get the law changed. I'm in full support of any serious efforts to make that happen, but until then we have to deal with it.
You're contradicting yourself badly here.

>The solution is to get the law changed
>You're welcome to challenge them in court if you want but you'll still lose.

So basically you're trying to argue that the law should be changed, but it won't and you'll lose.

>>4926473
>But that again is appeal to emotion. You're saying "You'll lose because I don't like you and I want it to happen."
No, you'll lose because Nintendo has all the laws and legal precedent on their side. Has nothing to do what I want to happen or feel is right.
>So basically you're trying to argue that the law should be changed, but it won't and you'll lose.
I'd like to think that the law will get changed someday, though I'm not getting my hopes up. And I certainly don't think that clinging to desperate delusions like mass jury nullification are the way to make it happen, either.

>>4926467
Me, I would say "Now why exactly do you need to depend on games made in 1987 as your main source of revenue? If you do depend on them that badly, it means you're a creatively bankrupt company who has no new or fresh ideas or product and deserves to go under."

I think it would be difficult for Nintendo to challenge this one.

>admitting that they depend on 8-bit games for revenue in 2018 means that they're creatively bankrupt and have to rely on past accomplishments
>if they say "no that isn't true we're perfectly capable of making new games", then their entire case for suing websites that host ROMs of 1980s games falls apart because they're wasting money and tying up the court system trying to enforce IP on a product that's not relevant to them anymore or bringing them any money

>>4926484
>No, you'll lose because Nintendo has all the laws and legal precedent on their side.
Do they, though? I would argue they don't for a number of reasons I've already outlined.
>So basically you're trying to argue that the law should be changed, but it won't and you'll lose.
>I'd like to think that the law will get changed someday, though I'm not getting my hopes up
Good, you're admitting you're part of the problem and not the solution.
>And I certainly don't think that clinging to desperate delusions like mass jury nullification are the way to make it happen, either.
That again is appeal to emotion.

>>4926490
I see what you mean, but it's a difficult proposition because IP laws don't make a clear distinction between whether an IP is profitable to the owner or not. It merely says "The IP owner maintains the publishing rights to said IP for a fixed amount of time" with no requirement that it actually has to be a source of revenue.

>>4926494
>Do they, though?
Yes.
>I would argue they don't for a number of reasons I've already outlined.
The "reasons" you've "outlined" have no basis in law whatsoever.
>Good, you're admitting you're part of the problem and not the solution.
You're not part of any solution, either. You're simply delusional.
>That again is appeal to emotion.
No, it's an appeal to logic.

>>4926168
disney has actual lawyers, you don't
therefore your opinion is unwarranted and invalid

>>4926490
>I think it would be difficult for Nintendo to challenge this one.
They don't have to challenge it. Legally it's a non-sequitur. They own the copyrights; whether they choose to exercise them is their prerogative.

>>4926508
>The "reasons" you've "outlined" have no basis in law whatsoever.
Explain how they don't.
>You're not part of any solution, either. You're simply delusional.
Which again is appeal to emotion and also ad-hominem with no actual argument.

>>4926514
>disney has actual lawyers, you don't

That would be the appeal to authority fallacy. It's arguing that if a doctor told you that eating dog poop he picked up in a bag at the local park will cure cancer. He's the doctor and you're not, so you can't question him about it.

>>4924648
i had to hunt down a rip of Atlantis for Sega Saturn. Look at this shitty game. But of course its rare and priceless otherwise.

>>4925279
just get the everdrive packs from archive.org. Then get the rom hack abd trabnslation pack from archive.org. Then get everything else from archive.org. voila

>>4926192
>brazilian citizens actually pay for the government to make awful movies nobody watches
brazil what the fuck are you even doing

>>4926515
>They own the copyrights; whether they choose to exercise them is their prerogative

The stated purpose of IP laws was to allow the owner to profit from his work. If he isn't profiting from it, then the entire point of the thing goes out the window. That's saying "Well no actually it isn't about profit, it's about letting someone own an IP simply for the sake it." Which is pretty silly either way you think about it. You can argue theoretical revenue all day long, but there's no way to actually prove it and that argument doesn't hold much water.

>>4926516
>Explain how they don't.
You said they're on shaky legal ground because they didn't enforce their copyrights for a long time. That's demonstrably false. Then you said they'd have trouble proving damages, which is an opinion, and irrelevant anyway because they're asking for statutory damages.

>>4926531
No, the stated purpose was to encourage the creation of new works. Copyright does not require profit to be valid. Is it silly? In some ways, yeah, it is. But that's the law. It's also what allows things like the GPL to work.

>>4926535
>You said they're on shaky legal ground because they didn't enforce their copyrights for a long time. That's demonstrably false
It isn't false. They went years without going after the ROM sites in question. Why is it suddenly an issue now when it wasn't in 2016 or 14 or 12 or whenever.

Let's take the argument that they have a legal case to collect damages. Fair enough. In my opinion, the damages they're seeking are much too high due to the amount of time that LoveROMs was in operation. They want $2 million in damages? If they went after the site 8 years ago, maybe they could justify that but since it's been that long, they deserve about $5000 at most. That's all I would award them if I were a judge.

>>4926543
>Copyright does not require profit to be valid
Actually it does. If you wrote a book or scripted a movie, I'm pretty sure you're hoping to make some profit from it. George Lucas didn't get rich by standing on a street corner and handing out Star Wars film reels to random passerbys.

>>4926553
>It isn't false. They went years without going after the ROM sites in question. Why is it suddenly an issue now when it wasn't in 2016 or 14 or 12 or whenever.
This doesn't put them on shaky legal ground, because this is not an argument based in law. Once again, copyrights can be enforced selectively and still remain valid.

>damages they're seeking are much too high
Well no shit, that's how copyright lawsuits work. They'll ask for the moon and get awarded something less than that. But it's pretty unlikely this case will even make it far enough for a judge to determine damages in the first place; they'll settle out of court for some undisclosed amount less than what they're asking for.

non-American here. can someone explain jury nullification to me?

>>4926579
It's basically a jury deciding the defendant is guilty, but saying he's not guilty because they don't like the law or the way the law is being applied.

>>4926569
>Once again, copyrights can be enforced selectively and still remain valid

They can, but it's very hard to try that without creating a massive PR disaster for yourself. It's akin to closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

>>4925430
implying this is a torrent that actually exists anywhere

>>4926582
It's also extremely difficult to invoke in practice now because white juries would use it during Jim Crow to get people who victimized blacks off the hook. Also if the prosecutor is enough of a bastard they just appeal it to a higher court and get the nullification overturned.

>>4926583
Nobody gives a shit about "muh PR" like you think they do. Consumers are largely sheep who beg corporate dicks for more cummies in their tummies and go along with whatever anti-consumer bullshit they come up with no matter how much fatbeards frog squeal about their end-user rights being infringed upon from DRM to always online and beyond. The amount of money they lose from negative PR is nothing compared to what they lose from piracy, and that's already pretty damn small.

>>4926582
>>4926579
His argument was basically that you could argue the entirety of existing US IP law is unjustifiable and should be thrown out. That's an interesting argument, but I'm skeptical that it would actually work in a court case. The reason is that a lot of big money is behind current IP laws and companies like Disney would be very butthurt if you invoked jury nullification to throw it out.

>>4926593
>Consumers are largely sheep who beg corporate dicks for more cummies in their tummies and go along with whatever anti-consumer bullshit they come up with no matter how much fatbeards frog squeal about their end-user rights being infringed upon from DRM to always online and beyond.
After all this time, he finally admits all along he's actually a Nintendo shillbot because nobody else would make such a nakedly pro-corporate/anti-consumerist argument like this.

>>4926593
>It's also extremely difficult to invoke in practice now because white juries would use it during Jim Crow to get people who victimized blacks off the hook

That's not a very good argument because various Constitutional amendments were also once used to justify slavery and Jim Crow. Therefore we should throw out the entire constitution because of what some judge in Alabama ruled 130 years ago.

I bet this site had current DS games and shit. They probably wouldn't bother going after a site that only had NES and SNES roms... Or maybe eventually they'll get there, but for now I doubt that's high on their list of priorities.

>>4926596
Did I say it was a good thing, faggot? No, I'm just telling it how it is and you can't deal with reality. Must be under 25.
>>4926603
It doesn't matter if you don't think it's a good argument because that's just how the legal system works. Doesn't hurt that those amendments in question were unquestionably overruled by subsequent legislation in black and white. Your reducio ad absurdum is autismal as all fuck but so is anything when /v/ and its spinoffs try to law.

>>4926596
You're arguing with multiple people here, just so you know.

>>4926594
Incidentally, Disney's copyright over Steamboat Willy and by extension Mickey Mouse is going to expire in 6 years. They are going to flood the US Congress with lobbyists and honey money to extend the life of copyright to something like the lifetime of the creator + 1 gorillion years. Since it won't happen during a Presidential election, though, don't hold your breath for the donor class consensus not to hold, though, even if it would be hilarious for Donald Trump to get entangled with it.

>>4926606
They want to create artificial scarcity to drive sales of their Classics plastic crap and shit like the Switch's digital arcade. They'll still sharpen their knives for NES and SNES ROMs.

>>4926612
>They'll still sharpen their knives for NES and SNES ROMs.
That would be stupid on their part then. I think the demographic who is buying those is people who are too stupid to figure out emulation but who also don't care enough about authenticity to play on the genuine consoles.

>>4926612
>Incidentally, Disney's copyright over Steamboat Willy and by extension Mickey Mouse is going to expire in 6 years. They are going to flood the US Congress with lobbyists and honey money to extend the life of copyright to something like the lifetime of the creator + 1 gorillion years.

The last time they tried that was in the 90s before the Internet was a significant thing and there was no social media. Today we're better informed and capable of fighting back.

dont they know that once one ROM site goes down another one almost immediately springs up?

>>4926612
I thought the rights for Mickey Mouse had been extended due to it being a sort of trademark very closely associated with Disney. Like they were able to argue that other companies being able to use Mickey Mouse to advertise what ever they feel like would be confusing to consumers or some such.

>>4926519
no the metaphor would be that you're all on here debating the health benefits of eating dog shit, and would tell a doctor that you're justified in doing so because the dog isn't making money off it anyway

>>4926637

>>4926182
Evidently Disney can't tell trademarks apart from copyrights either.

>>4926553
But that's exactly why they're suing this site. They have to demonstrate that they're still enforcing their ownership of those games or risk losing them.

>>4926664
The only time I've ever heard about some creative work being "forced" into the public domain just due to rampant piracy was in the case of the "Amen" drum break that was heavily sampled in various electronic music genres.

>>4925982
>Much like any other person or entity with copyrighted property, Nintendo are not obligated to sell anything they have copyrighted. Yes, there are still damages for infringing copyright even if the holder is not selling what they have copyrighted.
>You are not Robin Hood for infringing their copyright anyway.

That's not the issue. The issue is that the emulation services they offer suck (to put it lightly) and aren't worth paying for and they're trying to use dishonest legal tactics to force you to use them. Why would you pay for a NES Mini when it's not as good as the free emulators you can get? Now, I agree there is a certain contingent of people who just want free stuff and wouldn't pay for games under any circumstance, but I think for most people it's due to the dishonest, low quality emulation services Nintendo has had.

Now you could make the other argument that expecting people to pay for 30+ year old games is dishonest in of itself, but I'll leave that go. Nintendo would rather try and legally force you to use their services instead of making a better one that people might actually want to use.

>>4926664
I'm pretty sure you have to actually demonstrate that said pirates cost you a substantial sum of revenue. If you can't prove that to be the case, you're not going to get very far with a copyright infringement lawsuit. I mean, you might win it on the principle of the thing, but the legal expenses you incurred will exceed any possible monetary gain.

There's a lot of stuff out there that could be illegal if you have a strict enough interpretation of IP laws, but most copyright holders don't bother actually enforcing it unless the financial gain makes it worth the effort. Obviously Nintendo thinks that NES-era games are worth something. Whether it's true or not is debatable, but they believe it is.

>>4926710
>I'm pretty sure you have to actually demonstrate that said pirates cost you a substantial sum of revenue. If you can't prove that to be the case, you're not going to get very far with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
You don't. That's what statutory damages are for.

>>4925982
>Nintendo are not obligated to sell anything they have copyrighted.

https://www.vg247.com/2018/07/23/nintendo-suing-two-big-rom-sites/

>“The LoveROMs website alone receives 17 million visitors each month. Such visitors are drawn to the website by the widespread availability of free, unauthorized copies of Nintendo’s video games and other highly valuable intellectual property,” the lawsuit reads.

>highly valuable property that we don't actually make available for sale
...

>>4926715
With all due respect, that's not your call to make. It's entirely possible that Nintendo is purposefully mothballing their intellectual property to be leveraged at a later date for enhanced profit making. And they're allowed to do that. They're allowed to choose when and more specifically, when not to sell their own product. It's their property, and thus have legal control over it.

1. First rule of the Internet, once it is on the Internet it will forever remain on the Internet. Good luck getting rid of ROMs
2. Nintendo should sue themselves since they once sold an illegal ROM on the VC

>>4926725
>Nintendo should sue themselves since they once sold an illegal ROM on the VC
I mean, they were entirely within their rights to sell it. It does make them look a bit ridiculous, though.

I never understood how NoA continues to make asses of themselves so consistently for 35 years.

>>4926535
If companies want to keep their copyrights for longer than a dozen years or so, they should have to maintain them. Register and renew. With a fee. A fee that is gradually stepped up with time.

Furthermore, all copyrights should have a compulsory license with a reasonable fee.

Creating something and then using your copyright to keep it from the public does not "promote science and the useful arts." There is no benefit gained for society by granting legal protections to some creative work locked up in a vault somewhere. Why should we use our courts and our money to defend your entitlement with nothing in return?

And all of this applies extra to rights held by entities that no longer exist, leaving the copyrights valid but in limbo.

Can they prove they suffered a financial loss of any amount if these old games are not sold anymore?

>>4926745
The copyright holder doesn't have to. They hold the copyright and can decide not to sell it. If they don't sell it, you cant have it.

So how to calculate damages then? Lots of ways: Reputational risk (old games look like shit), loss of current sales (why buy a new game, when I can steal an old one for free?), loss of HW sales (emulators), legal fees...

a) Fuck you Nintendo, I paid enough for all of the original versions. time and time and time and time again... on every platform. gobbled your $60 a pop titles for decades. I'm sorry but you won't take away our backups, we paid for them.

2) What the other guy said. Trying to enforce copyright on 30-40 year old games is like what Abraham Lincoln said--"The best way to get rid of a bad law is to rigorously enforce it."

c3) Disney can also go to Hell.

d4) Try making a better emulator than the NES Mini

x) if you want me to buy new games, stop making them for platforms I don't want to use, because I am an rational adult

z1) If you want me to buy a game, price it reasonably.

Last but not least, don't sue your own customer base. I can't stress this enough.

>>4926765
It's the price of admission. Either pay it or don't play.

If you choose not to, that's fine. Just miss out on playing the games. But these lawsuits result from the fact that some people would prefer to pirate than to pay the price of admission, often justifying that decision with similar logic to yours - "I want the content on my phone for $1-2 per ROM, Nintendo doesn't offer that, so I'll pirate it instead."

That argument would also apply to pretty much every other form of piracy: "I only use Windows for a handful of games, if they won't release those games for Linux, I'll pirate Windows" or "I don't want to subscribe to HBO just for Game of Thrones - either they sell it to me standalone for $1 per episode or I pirate it".

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Sometimes a company chooses to release their content via a certain channel, and that's that. Either choose to consume the content in the approved manner, or don't. Gamers can't justify piracy just because they want the content distributed in a particular way.

I can see the justification for piracy when a company flatly refuses to release content in a certain market, or where content is entirely unavailable except through extremely overpriced used media. But where the content is available, at a reasonable price, and gamers choose to pirate it instead simply because they would prefer a different distribution method? That's inexcusable.

>>4926769
That's like if you own a restaurant and spit in the food. It's your restaurant and I can't tell you not to spit in the food, but at the same time I'm not obligated to eat there and pay for it.

>>4926769
I would argue that it's quite excusable from a moral (not legal) perspective when the content in question is 30+ years old. Copyright law has been distorted far beyond the bounds of reason and its original purpose.

>>4926773
>>4926612
You guys don't get the entire point of it. By keeping old IPs out of the public domain, it benefits the creation of new content because you're forced to consume new content. Every old book or movie or game you're viewing or playing is one less new book, movie, or game you're viewing or playing. Why would you watch the latest Disney movie if you can get Snow White for free?

No one is required to keep any title on the market until the heat death of the universe. Many books, music and videos have seen a single release and will never again be available outside pirate edition trading circles and second hand stores, but for new authors, musicians and movie makers, that is a good thing ... there is less old material eating in to the sale of new material.

>>4926776
Yeah, bullshit. There will always be demand for new material. Used stuff is cheaper than new stuff already, and yet content creators are doing better than ever.

>>4926776
Are you for real? That's not how it works at all. Unlimited copyright terms allow companies to milk ancient IPs forever and not have to make anything new. It is why Hollywood is becoming progressively more stagnant creatively. Why make a new movie when we can reboot something from 1983?

Besides, most normies will always prefer new material that reflects today's world than stuff from 40 years ago.

They no longer sell those games nor the hardware to run it. They are just greedy fucks.

>>4926789
That isn't the point. They don't have to; it's their IP and they, not you, can decide how, what, when, and where they want to make it available.

>>4926814

Nobody's debating whether they have the right or not, obviously they can do what they want. But we have the right to call them stupid for having an untapped market rom sites can capitalize on in the first place.

>>4926814
The argument here is like follows.

>neighbor invites me, my wife, and my 12 year old daughter over for tea and cake
>he says I have to let him rape my wife and daughter in front of me because it's his house, his rules, so I shouldn't come over if I don't like it

You can bet I sure wouldn't go over to his house anymore.

>>4926765
You are allowed to make backups. You and only You. The second you get a rom distributed to you or you distribute out a rom you are breaking legality.

>>4926596
>anon giving a cynical analysis about corporations and consumers equals being a shill for the former
You didn't think that one through, did you?

>>4926827
>he says I have to let him rape my wife and daughter in from of me because it's his house, his rules, so I shouldn't come over if I don't like it
Firstly, rape is considered a crime everywhere and it's an even bigger crime to do that to a minor. Whether you do that "in public" or "at home" isn't legally relevant and no, MUH PRIVACY has nothing to do with that.
Are you seriously comparing a serious crime to using a service that is in no way enforced to you and has a lot less influence on public order?

I swear to god that rape arguments are becoming just as bad as Godwin's law ...

You guys aren't getting it and you clearly have no understanding of legal precedence. So I'll break it down for you. The legal system doesn't work based on hypotheticals, it works based entirely on what's written on a piece of paper. That means a given law may be stupid, immoral even, but so long as it's the law of the land, that's all that counts.

Like the other guy said, rape is illegal. We all know that. But let's just imagine for a moment that IP laws stated that as compensation for you downloading ROMs, Nintendo executives got to rape your 12 year old daughter in front of you (I'm going to use his example to make my point here). Would that suck for you? It sure would. But if the law said they get to rape your daughter, well, too bad, that's the law. You're welcome to write to your Congressman and complain, but so long as the law says they can rape your daughter as punishment for copyright infringement...oh, well.

I'm not a legal positivist here, don't assume that for a moment. I believe a lot of very stupid/destructive laws are on the books, but so long as they are on the books, you're obligated to follow them. What you guys are saying is IP laws are wrong and I would win a lawsuit simply based on what I want the laws to say rather than what they actually do say, even if my version would be the better, fairer one. Well, no. If we ran things that way, we may as well have anarchy since everyone is allowed to make their own laws.

>>4925526
Their failure to produce the games we want in physical format on request is what made roms populars.
Can't we just place an order for games and then some factory will produce the cartridges or disc, print manuals and boxes, add an engraved date of production all different from old ones? They would make billions.
Imagine ordering a brand new Super Mario World for SNES and Conker Bad Fur Day for N64 with copy of Smash Melee brand new directly? Even if they are expensive like 80$ each. People would kep playing the older machines

>>4926946
Impractical, expensive, and unnecessary. They instead need to just offer the ROMs to download in a Spotify kind of service where you can use/emulate them however you like.

I went on /v/ five minutes ago and I swear to God, it looked like I was in /r/videogames.

Here's the thing. Nintendo has a much bigger axe to grind with pirates than the competition because they're an almost dead company with no source of revenue other than games from 25 years ago. Sony is a multifaceted electronics company; they have many sources of revenue outside games. Microsoft makes most of their income from corporate/government Office sales.

I think most companies wouldn't be this obsessed with hunting down ROM sites if they had some product other than another shitty Mariobox to peddle.

>>4926814
Let me show you this example. Microprose literally had copy protections in the 80s that wrecked people's disk drives. Yeah, screw that. If you release a game that does this, people should pirate it. It's completely justified in this situation.

By your logic, it's their property, therefore if they want to, they can do stuff with it that can damage your hardware.

From Gabe Newell. If Nintendo had an easy way to sell various NES, SNES, 64 games as a digital copy, piracy/ROMs would noticeably decrease.
"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, any time, anywhere, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region locked, will come to your country three months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

He's assuming altruism doesn't exist and people are inherently scum who if can pirate/get something for free, they will. I don't agree with it because my belief has always been that if you deliver quality product, people will gladly pay you for it because they see it's a good product and the creator(s) deserve to be compensated. If you can't sell any copies of a game and it's all just pirated, chances are the game wasn't very good anyway and nobody could justify spending money on it.

>>4926776
Wew lad, are you one of Nintendo's or Disney's lawyers?
>everything old should be owned by corporations whose current employee base had nothing to do with the production of said old things because that's actually good for consumers and the companies should be able to sue literal nobodies on the internet for One Hundred Million dollars and ruin their lives instead of just mandating that they remove the content and that's a good thing

>>4926776
This is why Ubisoft doesn't allow mods.

I regularly pay to see shows that are never recorded, lol.

Any bets on how long before Nintendo's lawyers start going after sites like 4chan or even individual posters because people are reposting their copyrighted images on a site that runs ads?

FUCK THA POLICE

Really makes you love Sega even more...

>>4928208
Sega doesn't care about piracy because they have nothing worth stealing anyways.

>>4927597
Sure, I bet you're a dumb faggot.

>>4926528
America does that too. China, France, Japan... you name it. In fact, it would be harder to find a country that doesn't do that in some way.
Being brazilian myself I wanna say that it's somehow worse here, but I don't know, maybe it's the same everywhere.
The other anon is right, though- the movies are all terrible and some of them are -literally- watched by no one, ever. Some are fully sponsored and finished but never see an actual release so they just stay in a dvd tucked away in some old government archive collecting dust and rot.

>>4925918
For the price of one of those you can buy an original and a couple games off ebay.

>>4928267
As an original hardware user myself, the prices on eBay and the like for a lot of NES and later Nintendo consoles are fucking absurd, I can't blame somebody for wanting to buy one of those classic deals

>>4928229
At this point, they're just happy that Sonic has such an, um, "passionate" fandom.

>>4928315
Do they even give a shit about their other IPs at this point?

>>4928319
House of the Bread got a new game this year that looks decent.

>>4928272
>I can't blame somebody for wanting to buy one of those classic deals

I have the following NES carts in my collection.

>SMB 1-3
>Kirby
>both Zeldas
>Mega Man 1
>Castlevania
>Double Dragon
>Bad Dudes
>Pac-Man
>Tetris
>Ms. Pac-Man
>Donkey Kong Classics
>DQ 1-2
>Balloon Fight
>Lode Runner
>Mario Bros
>Bubble Bobble
>Galaga
>Spiritual Warfare

That's eight games that the NES Classic doesn't have. If you want to play those particular titles, too bad.

>>4928329
I never understood why they didn't include Tetris of all things.

I'm not sure what the point of it even is. The operators of LoveROMs are probably just some neckbeards who live in their mom's basement. What money could Nintendo possibly get out of them?

>>4928358
Scare tactics, obvs

>>4928358
>settle for the site being taken down plus damages around whatever he earned from the site
>NDA preventing him from giving the details of the settlement
>everyone thinks "Oh no this guy had to pay out a gorillion dollars, better take down my ROM site"

>>4928368
>settle for the site being taken down plus damages around whatever he earned from the site

They should refuse to give Nintendo anything and instead just say they're donating the money to some children's cancer fund.

>>4924637
Good.

>>4928384
What's good? The lawsuit or donating the money to children's cancer research?

>>4928370

Meaningless PR move that wouldn't accomplish anything.

It's like someone else said. Nintendo just can't into Internet or drop their 1990s business model.

>>4928370
Why not just spend the money and go bankrupt?

>>4926182
This. The old Superman shorts are public domain and can be freely viewed anywhere, even though DC obviously still owns Superman.

>>4926264
It's worth pointing out that John Carmack is openly fine with people pirating the old Doom games because he was never going to get any of the money from steam/gog sales anyway.

>>4928765
It would be hard to believe that the id team weren't pirating software themselves back in the day.

>>4928319
It depends on what part of the world you're in. Over in the West it's mostly just Sonic being whored out all the time. I'm told in the East nobody really gives a shit about him, it's more about Yakuza and Phantasy Star.

>>4928785
The Saturn over there is an RPG box, not a sports/racing dudebro console like over here.

>>4928780
That's the thing, in the same statement Carmack admitted to pirating Ultima games in his youth.

>>4928793
Kinda reminds me of a beta version of I think maybe Duke 3D where it was like, if you aren't a reviewer and your playing this, you're a dirty pirate... but please send us some feedback

>>4928793
One did, everyone did. The typical Apple II/C64/Amiga owner bought about 20% of all the games he had in his collection of disks.

>>4928790
Not really, i mean if you count anime dating sims rpgs. Despite the great japanese saturn library, there is an overwhelming number of interactive discs masquerading as games, anime simulators and point and click-ish mystery solvers. Its actually kinda sad. I did find a few good games by watching the sega saturn video magazine.

>>4928790

The Saturn is nothing outside of Japan.

>>4926321
Why wouldn't jury null work in this case?
Blacks use it all the time to derail trials when the defendant dindu nuffin.
All it would take is one sympathetic gamer in the twelve randomly selected jurors, no?

>>4928985
>All it would take is one sympathetic gamer in the twelve randomly selected jurors, no?
In theory yes but in practice no since juries are usually made of retired old people with nothing better to do.

www.planetemu.net is still up. Not moving the needle on my give-a-shit-o-meter.

>>4925315
Why even do that? Most Nintendo consoles contain a lot of shovelware. Grab all the games you like or might like, instead of wasting storage

>>4924659
a WhoIs check. Basically the information on who owns a domain is pretty much public.

>>4925396
Guarantee Emuparadise is next on their list.

>>4925284
In 1998 Nintendo introduced me to emulation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040203181323/internal.tbi.net/~max/zelda64.htm

This website was linked to under fansites on Nintendo's official website for OoT. I want you to click the Downloads section under "Special Features"

>>4924637
Aren't most games (3rd party) just licensed anyway? All those licenses would have been re-negotiated or let expired no? Or are they licensed in perpetuity? Otherwise, how can CAPCOM release megaman1 on a ps2 collections disc?

I dont know anything about law or anything, I'm just adding my guess.

>>4925982
It's because downloading roms is antithetical to the mentality the shelf collectors have (who spend hundreds of dollars collecting).

It's sad/disgusting really. I collect VHS/DVDs but I don't shit on people for pirating movies.

>>4925762
and?
some publishers used no-cd-cracks to sell their games on steam, because they couldn't be arsed or able to make a new compile.
it's their IP, when people do the cracking and dumping for free and the companies can make some money out of it, too bad, so sad.
try suing ninty, lol.

>>4932363
Sorry, you forfeit your right to complain about ROM sites in that case. Either crack it from scratch or get the fuck out.

>>4924637
lmao 20 years too late lads.

>>4932363
Depends on how you interpret IP laws. The cracked version is modified from the original game and not 100% identical to it, so if you really want to nitpick, then the cracker owns the rights to his crack and the developer has to get permission from him to use it (he only has the rights to whatever he made himself).

Meaning it would be illegal to redistribute a ROM that was clean and unmodified from the original, because that contains Nintendo's code. If you modded the ROM, for example merely changing the color palette of Link's clothing, then it contains your code, not Nintendo's.

When they say you have to get permission from the owner to use copyrighted IP, what does that even mean though? A company can contain hundreds of people. If the janitor in the restroom at Nintendo's offices said you could upload a ROM, would that apply? He's technically a representative of the company. It makes sense for works created by an individual, but corporately created ones it really doesn't.

>>4934248

>>4932363
>some publishers used no-cd-cracks to sell their games on steam, because they couldn't be arsed or able to make a new compile
And they expect my money for this because why?

>>4925762
When?

>>4925958
>Copyright should, at the very least, be lost when the copyright holder dies. I'd say it either be when he dies or ten years, whichever is longer

This is asinine. No other industry guarantees someone's position for the length of their life. Most people earn money through labor and quit when they retire. If you want to use logic, it should be for the term of their career.

>>4928329
>Bubble Bobble

God I wish I still had my cart

>>4934661
Generally the individual creators aren't the ones getting their panties in a wad over copyright. Sure, no one likes someone else freely profiting off their shit, but typically it is the big corporations who sue for hundreds of millions of dollars over the illegal use of an IP (created by their intellectual slaves) and not the actual content creators. Because, of course, a lot of the ancillary people involved in the games they're suing over are probably retired and living a middle-class life and won't see a dime from any lawsuit while the shysters will line their pockets just by being money-grubbing bottom feeders.

>>4934685
Like, really. The programmers, artists, musicians, etc who did NES games aren't involved with modern-day Nintendo so where does the money from suing you go? Not to the people who made those games.

>>4934692
The lawyers, the Nintendo corporation.

If I were a judge and they asked for that kind of settlement, I'd laugh them right outta the courtroom.

>>4934724
And I'm very sure any of those people stayed up all night writing scrolling routines for SMB3.

>>4925796
Name one instance of a ROM site owner getting sued. Not taken down, not given a cease-and-desist. Sued.

>>4924648
Fuck your morals. I don't get this entitlement argument. Do you honestly think we even care weather it's right or wrong? At the end of the day roms will live on because computer emulators provide a unique experience not even the official emulations can match. It is competition, and by squashing it out through legal routes it just makes you look weak and unable to compete with your own fans.

>>4926586
have you been to /t/ before friend

>>4938043
Nope.

>>4934248
That's chink copyright logic.

>>4941441
IIRC, that's a valid interpretation. You're not going to get any damages and might even have to pay up yourself, but the company isn't going to be able to use what you did without permission either.

>>4941616
I mean, he's not wrong. If you installed a crack screen on a game, the screen is technically your IP since you made it.

>>4938043
The torrent for every game for the ps1, 2, 3, N64, dreamcast, wii, and even the switch exists, And they're fucking massive. you have to know emulators though, and I'm still not autistic enough to download and sift through literally thousands of games.

>>4924659
You have to pay money and register a site on clearweb. It would be different if those idiots used something like Tor, IPFS, Freenet, or a platform like Riot.im to host torrent links.

>>4925928
>Look you're not allowed to read your old books because they made shitty movie adaptations of them that have the same name and one or two of the same characters. I don't care that you want to enjoy the part they cut out of the movie, this isn't aimed at you anymore so you're not allowed to enjoy it. Finding the old books legally is impossible and wouldn't bring any money to the original author even it it were, but fuck you you're not allowed to enjoy it anymore. Don't you know all things you buy come with an expiration date so we can sell it to you again later?

>>4924637
>LoveROMs
And nothing of value was lost. They're just going after an easy target to A) set a future precedent and B) scare other ROM sites.

>>4925818
Mother 1 gba is the best one. Just because R button to interact and the easy ring.

>>4924659
the geniuses that ran the site used real names, ID and even had an LLC registered. they were trying to run the site as a business. they made no serious attempt to hide their true ownership over the site. it made nintendo's job easy.
>>4944505
>It would be different if those idiots used something like Tor, IPFS, Freenet, or a platform like Riot.im to host torrent links
that wasn't the aim of this website's existence. it was setup like a commercial enterprise. this was their downfall.
>>4944628
> using public sites for commercial software
they're the only sites that should be concerned. for everyone else, it's just another uneventful day. i haven't seen any private sites being concerned. they know nintendo love the low hanging fruit to make examples out of.

>>4928272
>much less than msrp
>absurd
It seems old games aren't very good.

>>4924637
>cancel virtual console service
>resort to selling only a handful of pre-determined, super-popular games on retarded mini-consoles that are very poorly stocked
>attack ROM sites for daring to let people download copies of games Nintendo themselves probably forgot existed
For what purpose, Nintendo?

As long as they attack pirates that try to turn a profit with adfly links and shit like that I'm all for it. Speaking of which I need to get back to DDOSing those and tipping off the odd federal agent to them giving money to CP distributors.

>>4931282
they removed all Nintendo games

>>4944816
>they know nintendo love the low hanging fruit to make examples out of.
I never see them go after chink pirates either, have you?

>>4945160
That's a losing play no matter how you go at it. Cut off the head, two more pop up kind of deal.

>>4945069
>In the face of recent news and measures taken by Nintendo against some emulation sites, it was decided to remove all sets of ROMs Nintendo consoles on the site. Thank you for your understanding.
Well there goes one of my old standbys. Good thing I was able to download the shit I wanted to get a year ago.

>>4924637
Who cares, you can't stop rom websites.

Cut one head off, 2 more grow back