Second round of legality discussion for you.

[uaktags]

Just like before, I'm asking for a serious conversation in the realm of legality surrounding the current "PS3 War" going on. Before It was more so on the aspect of Sony's case, but now I feel like dumbin it down a little to more so something alot of us homebrewers do and use and it'll reflect the word "Pirate"

Background: Recently reading through twitter (i only follow a select few in the PS3 scene, don't really know many devs i like to follow on daily basis) but KaKaRoTo made reference to some "hate" mail he recieved and then stated how people confuse the term Pirate, with hacker, cracker, etc. Well just a minute ago, reading the update about the expansion of Sony's case, I read more people talking about how much they like their CFW and linux supports and one similarity I find is with ROMs and Emulators.

As most roms that people get are the old school games, most will think that okay they're old, no one cares. Fact remains, they are still copyrighted material and most are not yet considered "abandonware" or released to Public Domain. Then you move up with the roms, roms can either be your old Atari, or the Gameboy (Color, DS). They even have PS1-2 emulators for Computers. So if copying, downloading, and installing Xbox/PS3 games is considered Piracy by the scene and the rest of the world, what do we call Roms? Are Roms legal in your eyes and to what extent?

Again, my agenda is to hold a more so intellectual conversation, looking to sprout great opinions and unbeatable facts. Please dont spam with any BS comments and we all know BS comments.

[PiKeYtRoG]

Roms should be used by those people whom own the software on another medium.

The roms should exist for the people who do not have the tools or the knowledge to convert their legally purchased software into another medium.

But unfortunately, people DO steal. People DO want a free lunch. With pudding. And a free drink. So you can never isolate these files from the lawbreakers.

Indeed, people cannot distinguish a genuine person who has the legit software on say, a cartridge, to those who do not own the software at all.

So the solution? There ain`t one. Unless the supplier of the ROMS can guarantee under penalty of perjury or whatever, that they are free from copyright restrictions, they should not be hosting, transmitting or anything in any form whatsoever.

It is on a different medium? Tough Sh*t! Until it becomes abandonware that is...If it ever will. Someone wrote it and someone still owns the rights to it unless it was PD software.

Copyright is copyright like you say, until the law changes or something. People cannot hide behind the facade that because software is old, it is allowed to be freely pirated.

[tpmjb]

You guys must have better things to do with your lives than discuss something as old and tired as this argument right?

Some people steal, some people use it legitimately, and nobody really cares.

[SoleStar]

You guys must have better things to do with your lives than discuss something as old and tired as this argument right?

Some people steal, some people use it legitimately, and nobody really cares.

What he said!

[uaktags]

Better things to do? I live on a different continent from where my home is, serving in the military, doing a job i really hate (more so ppl i hate, job is pretty much the shit). Not really anything to do but to talk to people and get insights in to other peoples thoughts an opinions, or everyone can go back to discussions about CFWs that don't exist or helping ReRes that cant look one or two topics down the list to find out their stupid question has been answered.

@Pikeyrog, thanks for humoring me. I agree whole-heartingly with you, but then again I also do have a select number of roms to consoles and games I dont own (never had the chance to grow up with Super Mario Brothers, but damn did it pass time in Afghanistan).

Maybe heres something to involve our two other guys who feel the starting conversation was tooo old and outdated for them.
An interesting thing that I just now learned as I do my nightly bored-surfing expedition through wikipedia, I came across a lawsuit against Sony, Sony Corp of America vs. Universal City Studios. What I found funny about this, is Sony being the accused persons here at creating a device "Betamax" which Universal City Studios found to open doors to copying movies (copyright infrigement). All Sony was doing was trying to create the next big thing in technology for home entertainment, but someone else felt they were opening doors to Copyright infringement. Now move ahead a few decades, you have Sony accusing innocent developers of opening doors to (or in some aspects accusing of actually doing so) copyright infringement "Piracy". Maybe I twisted and jumbled those words a bit to make a point thats not even present, but anywho what's the thoughts of that?

[notmoving]

The betamax decision is very interesting in a lot of ways, some of which you've intuited. Really, it's the decision that made VCRs that could record a serious possibility by essentially blessing the concept of an "archival backup" of sorts for the person who buys something. This is what allowed blank cassette recorders to exist, then CD recorders, DVD recorders, MP3 recording, now bluray recording. WAAAAY simplifying it, the Betamax case says you can't prevent blank recordable media entirely because some (most?) users will be using it illegally. Companies that made tv shows, and movies, etc. were worried that if people could buy devices to copy them, they would go out of business because no one would pay for them (how right they were....) Then, Sony was making the recordable media and the recording devices. Now Sony has expanded - remember, they now make movies, tv shows, video games, etc. - content, not just devices and media. That puts them on both sides of the line, and I'm sure they'll argue both sides of the line.

No matter how you look at it, if you have a ROM of a game you didn't pay for, or an mp3 of a song you didn't pay for, or an mp4 of a movie you didn't pay for, you're probably breaking the law. That's most of what they're worried about. Also, they can get companies to pay them for access to selling things on their restricted media. Homebrewers doing it for free frustrates that business model. That's most of the rest of what they're worried about. This is the part that seems inherently wrong - If developer X makes a rom, distributes it for free, and people use it, Sony has no stake in that. If developer X makes a rom, charges for it, and people use it, Sony only arguably has a right to claim that they should get paid for access to their restricted media. This is where you read the Betamax case and think "What the...? Isn't that what NBC et. al. were worried about 20 something years ago?"

[robo989]

Roms should be used by those people whom own the software on another medium.

The roms should exist for the people who do not have the tools or the knowledge to convert their legally purchased software into another medium.

But unfortunately, people DO steal. People DO want a free lunch. With pudding. And a free drink. So you can never isolate these files from the lawbreakers.

Indeed, people cannot distinguish a genuine person who has the legit software on say, a cartridge, to those who do not own the software at all.

So the solution? There ain`t one. Unless the supplier of the ROMS can guarantee under penalty of perjury or whatever, that they are free from copyright restrictions, they should not be hosting, transmitting or anything in any form whatsoever.

It is on a different medium? Tough Sh*t! Until it becomes abandonware that is...If it ever will. Someone wrote it and someone still owns the rights to it unless it was PD software.

Copyright is copyright like you say, until the law changes or something. People cannot hide behind the facade that because software is old, it is allowed to be freely pirated.

It's "ROMs" or "ROM"...not ROMS or Roms.

[robo989]

Just like before, I'm asking for a serious conversation in the realm of legality surrounding the current "PS3 War" going on. Before It was more so on the aspect of Sony's case, but now I feel like dumbin it down a little to more so something alot of us homebrewers do and use and it'll reflect the word "Pirate"

Background: Recently reading through twitter (i only follow a select few in the PS3 scene, don't really know many devs i like to follow on daily basis) but KaKaRoTo made reference to some "hate" mail he recieved and then stated how people confuse the term Pirate, with hacker, cracker, etc. Well just a minute ago, reading the update about the expansion of Sony's case, I read more people talking about how much they like their CFW and linux supports and one similarity I find is with ROMs and Emulators.

As most roms that people get are the old school games, most will think that okay they're old, no one cares. Fact remains, they are still copyrighted material and most are not yet considered "abandonware" or released to Public Domain. Then you move up with the roms, roms can either be your old Atari, or the Gameboy (Color, DS). They even have PS1-2 emulators for Computers. So if copying, downloading, and installing Xbox/PS3 games is considered Piracy by the scene and the rest of the world, what do we call Roms? Are Roms legal in your eyes and to what extent?

Again, my agenda is to hold a more so intellectual conversation, looking to sprout great opinions and unbeatable facts. Please dont spam with any BS comments and we all know BS comments.

Well, you're opinion is pretty much the standard opinion shared by people who do have a clue what's going on. Basically you're in the small minority of the world who post on the internet and aren't total retards

The people who can't differentiate between hacker, cracker and in this case pirate (you have to be a certain kind of stupid twat to not be able to, let's be honest because a pirate doesn't even belong in the old comparison of hacker\cracker)...Are all PS3 owning gimps, or "fanboys". They can't stand the thought that people are enjoying games for free....They throw all kinds of idiotic arguments around, and well...Only the other day I read a comment comparing...

geohot to a paedophile\murderer\rapist!

Go check out the site Video Games, Charts, Articles, News, Reviews, Community, Forums at The VGChartz Network

Look in the PS3 forum section, the views of the people there are so warped it's quiet alarming to read how misinformed they are. Prepare yourself for metaphorical Sony rimjobbing on the most grand of scales!!!

That's why people can't tell the difference, because these people are insecure losers who believe what they want then form an argument based on that (!!!)

Emulation to them is fine because it's emulating a console THEY DON'T OWN or feel threatned will be dead because of piracy. (It doesn't help that most of these people are little shitty spotty turd teenagers, coupled with another demographic of 20 somethings, still living at home with no money to own more than 1 games console)

They almost sound like ethnic extremists the way they talk it's beyond comprehension to me but hey ho.

So in effect the there is no confusion on the term, it's purely down to the disgusting mindsets that people have. Thank god I don't know anyone like that, because you really would have to be a "real world" prick to have the points of view of a Sony fanboy

[Shadow Pyro]

You can't sell things that aren't worth the price. It's basically supply and demand.
Now say do I care if I have to pay Nintendo for these pieces of software that they made a long time ago?

If it is yes, then good for you! You continue the cycle where the creators get money to create more things. You go to the Wii Virtual Console and buy a $5 dollar NES game that came out 25 years ago.

If it is no, you are a warez pirate. Enjoy your free game that took years and money for other people to create. I hope you sleep well at night.

The problem is money. Creators want to get paid for their work. Nobody works for free. Is it fair? Yes! Look at Square Enix. They thought they could piggy bank and milk that Final Fantasy cash cow forever but everything comes to an end. You let the market dictate and next thing you know Square Enix is almost going bankrupt and Facebook is valued at 50 billion dollars.

That's a lesson that you can't sell things that aren't worth the price. Even if it's free, in the end somebody is going to get paid for their hard work whether through personal enrichment, ad money, or selling customer information.

[notmoving]

You can't sell things that aren't worth the price. It's basically supply and demand.
Now say do I care if I have to pay Nintendo for these pieces of software that they made a long time ago?

If it is yes, then good for you! You continue the cycle where the creators get money to create more things. You go to the Wii Virtual Console and buy a $5 dollar NES game that came out 25 years ago.

If it is no, you are a warez pirate. Enjoy your free game that took years and money for other people to create. I hope you sleep well at night.

The problem is money. Creators want to get paid for their work. Nobody works for free. Is it fair? Yes! Look at Square Enix. They thought they could piggy bank and milk that Final Fantasy cash cow forever but everything comes to an end. You let the market dictate and next thing you know Square Enix is almost going bankrupt and Facebook is valued at 50 billion dollars.

That's a lesson that you can't sell things that aren't worth the price. Even if it's free, in the end somebody is going to get paid for their hard work whether through personal enrichment, ad money, or selling customer information.

What? How did you get to this point B from the discussion's point A? You're not wrong, and I don't disagree, but...

You need to define the words you're using... you may not be able to SELL things that aren't worth the price, but clearly people CONSUME things without paying the legal, asked for price. Sometimes we call that stealing. Sometimes piracy. Sometimes justice.

Sony is trying to define the words that are used - what is intellectual property? The ps3 device when it leaves their hands, or the ps3 device until it's ground to its constituent atoms? What is THEIR intellectual property? The design of the hardware and coding of the software or the continuing use of and access to the hardware?

IP law is about framing the question. If Sony wins, think about this - Can Microsoft sell PCs and not allow you to install non MS software on them? Can Microsoft sell PCs, not allow you to install non MS software on them, and either not allow you to install their software on non MS PCs or not install the best MS software on non MS PCs? Can MS include an EULA that says you can't shop at certain stores with their web browser? Can Ford require you to put certain tires on your car, and sue you if you don't? What about brands of gas? Car wax?