E
edwest2
Guest
Contact archive.org or one of the companies who has their games there. Find out how it works. A license? Free - we don’t care. Or other.
Ed
- Status
Ed
C
ctlw83
Guest
Hey Ed,
So I took your advice and have written to both Archive.org and the IP holders for the following companies:
The letter I sent reads similar to the following:
Hello,
I recently noticed that (gamecompany) titles have been both made available for live game play through their Console Living Room section, as well as direct ROM downloads from their TOSEC section as well. Granted that I have paid for many (gamecompany) game properties multiple times, including a large bundle of properties on Steam. My question is, are these titles and ROMs listed on Archive.org done fully with (gamecompany)'s consent?
Again, I don’t mind paying (gamecompany) for classic titles, and in fact, I have done so through whatever means possible. I’m just asking because I’d rather know that if I chose to utilize materials on Archive.org related to (gamecompany), that the use of those materials is with consent of the original right’s holder.
Thank You for your response and for the years of quality gaming entertainment!
God Bless,
Hopefully I will get some responses and this will help to clear up some confusion both for us and for others asking the same questions.
So I took your advice and have written to both Archive.org and the IP holders for the following companies:
- SEGA
- Intellivision
- ColecoVision
- Atari
The letter I sent reads similar to the following:
Hello,
I recently noticed that (gamecompany) titles have been both made available for live game play through their Console Living Room section, as well as direct ROM downloads from their TOSEC section as well. Granted that I have paid for many (gamecompany) game properties multiple times, including a large bundle of properties on Steam. My question is, are these titles and ROMs listed on Archive.org done fully with (gamecompany)'s consent?
Again, I don’t mind paying (gamecompany) for classic titles, and in fact, I have done so through whatever means possible. I’m just asking because I’d rather know that if I chose to utilize materials on Archive.org related to (gamecompany), that the use of those materials is with consent of the original right’s holder.
Thank You for your response and for the years of quality gaming entertainment!
God Bless,
Chris
Hopefully I will get some responses and this will help to clear up some confusion both for us and for others asking the same questions.
S
steve93
Guest
I seriously doubt that the church fathers addressed intellectual and copyright issues. Nintendo, in my opinion, is just as bad as Disney manipulating the copyright laws to their own gain.
C
ctlw83
Guest
I haven’t received any emails replies as of yet. In fact, with SEGA, NONE of the email addresses on their Legal page actually work. They all get bounced back.
However, I did find something about Archive.org and copyright. Per a ruling from the copyright office, Archive.org has the right to archive copywritten works which are at risk of loss due to media format access being unavailable. IE games originally released on cartridges, diskette, CD-ROM, etc
They are protected both as a library/archive and under the concepts of Fair Use.
archive.org/about/dmca.php
Request for exemptions/modifications to DMCA - copyright.gov/1201/2003/comments/025.pdf
So, under this sense, any ROMs or Games on Archive.org are OK from a Copyright perspective. However, that does NOT mean the original rights’ holders are necessarily “happy” about it.
However, I did find something about Archive.org and copyright. Per a ruling from the copyright office, Archive.org has the right to archive copywritten works which are at risk of loss due to media format access being unavailable. IE games originally released on cartridges, diskette, CD-ROM, etc
They are protected both as a library/archive and under the concepts of Fair Use.
archive.org/about/dmca.php
Request for exemptions/modifications to DMCA - copyright.gov/1201/2003/comments/025.pdf
So, under this sense, any ROMs or Games on Archive.org are OK from a Copyright perspective. However, that does NOT mean the original rights’ holders are necessarily “happy” about it.
C
ctlw83
Guest
As of right now I have received no direct responses from Archive.org nor from any of the game IP holders I mentioned. It did take a good amount of time to find the contacts for the companies, and I do believe I have done all possible due diligence on my part. If I do eventually hear anything back, I’ll let everyone know.
Right now, this is a summary of findings:
Until evidence to the contrary is presented, any content in the gaming sections of Archive.org previously listed are within the bounds of legitimate use. There are ROMs present in the TOSEC section which would presumably fall under the same copyright clauses as the Console Living Room.
General Morality Statements/Questions about Intellectual Property based upon my journey thus far:
Game rights’ holders deserve to be paid for their content
The use/download of software outside of legitimate copyright exceptions and without legitimate purchase is theft.
If a user has, in good faith, paid the IP holder for said content, does a shift from one platform to another morally represent “theft” of the IP?
I’m not sure, as the user paid for a copy of the software in question and is not sharing or further selling the content, does that truly represent theft? It may be against the terms of service of the rights’ holder but, the question remains, does it morally represent theft? When VCRs were in common use, did taping a movie off HBO or other movie channels represent theft?
I still believe this is a moral “gray” area. If a user has paid a rights’ holder for content and simply wants to move the content from one device to another or shift from one format to another without sharing or selling the content, I can’t see that as stealing. The rights’ holders were paid for their content, and thus aren’t losing anything if the content is held to the purchaser, even shifted between platforms or formats.
This would also logically apply to any content that falls under the copyright exception rules Archive.org utilizes. If rights’ holders are allowing the content in one format or for one or multiple systems via Archive.org, I again, cannot see how format or platform shifting would represent theft, as the producer of said content has provided that content free of charge via an online platform.
The real question here would be, are terms of service at the same level of moral culpability as first sale, fair use, and/or copyright law itself?
What about content that is no longer for sale or is out of print?
This is a slippery slope argument. One might argue that I have the “right” to access material if I want it. However, if the original rights holder either no longer exists, or the rights have transferred to a holding company that isn’t selling the property, they still technically own the product in question. One cannot simply “take” something just because it can’t be purchased.
However, one could work with someone like Archive.org or work with rights’ holders to see if legitimate access to said work could be obtained. While an archival copy of said content should be kept for posterity sake, it is not the right of an individual to take it upon themselves to archive said work or make it available to others.
Note: These are just my thoughts thus far. Some of these questions likely have no definitive answer from the Magisterium or within the bounds of Catholic Moral Teaching. If nothing else, I think this is a great springboard for conversation, so long as people are careful to keep their emotions and egos in check.
Right now, this is a summary of findings:
- Content on Archive.org is held in accordance with legitimate exceptions added to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Archive.org also claims they will respect any takedown requests from copyright holders and none have come up thus far in terms of their Console Living Room or TOSEC sections for the content currently present.
- No Nintendo properties are present as Nintendo aggressively defends their intellectual property, which is their right.
Until evidence to the contrary is presented, any content in the gaming sections of Archive.org previously listed are within the bounds of legitimate use. There are ROMs present in the TOSEC section which would presumably fall under the same copyright clauses as the Console Living Room.
General Morality Statements/Questions about Intellectual Property based upon my journey thus far:
Game rights’ holders deserve to be paid for their content
The use/download of software outside of legitimate copyright exceptions and without legitimate purchase is theft.
If a user has, in good faith, paid the IP holder for said content, does a shift from one platform to another morally represent “theft” of the IP?
I’m not sure, as the user paid for a copy of the software in question and is not sharing or further selling the content, does that truly represent theft? It may be against the terms of service of the rights’ holder but, the question remains, does it morally represent theft? When VCRs were in common use, did taping a movie off HBO or other movie channels represent theft?
I still believe this is a moral “gray” area. If a user has paid a rights’ holder for content and simply wants to move the content from one device to another or shift from one format to another without sharing or selling the content, I can’t see that as stealing. The rights’ holders were paid for their content, and thus aren’t losing anything if the content is held to the purchaser, even shifted between platforms or formats.
This would also logically apply to any content that falls under the copyright exception rules Archive.org utilizes. If rights’ holders are allowing the content in one format or for one or multiple systems via Archive.org, I again, cannot see how format or platform shifting would represent theft, as the producer of said content has provided that content free of charge via an online platform.
The real question here would be, are terms of service at the same level of moral culpability as first sale, fair use, and/or copyright law itself?
What about content that is no longer for sale or is out of print?
This is a slippery slope argument. One might argue that I have the “right” to access material if I want it. However, if the original rights holder either no longer exists, or the rights have transferred to a holding company that isn’t selling the property, they still technically own the product in question. One cannot simply “take” something just because it can’t be purchased.
However, one could work with someone like Archive.org or work with rights’ holders to see if legitimate access to said work could be obtained. While an archival copy of said content should be kept for posterity sake, it is not the right of an individual to take it upon themselves to archive said work or make it available to others.
Note: These are just my thoughts thus far. Some of these questions likely have no definitive answer from the Magisterium or within the bounds of Catholic Moral Teaching. If nothing else, I think this is a great springboard for conversation, so long as people are careful to keep their emotions and egos in check.
C
ctlw83
Guest
Additional (minor) update:
It does appear that despite Nintendo’s Terms of Service, “Super Famicom” IE Super Nintendo games are available in the TOSEC section of Archive.org.
Anything on Archive.org does fall within a legal DMCA exception, although, in this case would also conflict with the Terms of Service on Nintendo’s website. Again, moral question at play now becomes which is more morally binding, Copyright or Terms of Service?
In that case we then have a paradox on our hands.
My Thought Process (correct me if not logically sound):
It does appear that despite Nintendo’s Terms of Service, “Super Famicom” IE Super Nintendo games are available in the TOSEC section of Archive.org.
Anything on Archive.org does fall within a legal DMCA exception, although, in this case would also conflict with the Terms of Service on Nintendo’s website. Again, moral question at play now becomes which is more morally binding, Copyright or Terms of Service?
In that case we then have a paradox on our hands.
My Thought Process (correct me if not logically sound):
- There is a legitimate DMCA/Copyright exemption for the work(s) in question.
- While the copyright holder does retain ownership, there is an exemption in place which limits/restricts the extent of the influence of said ownership.
- The original copyright holder (nintendo) has apparently not requested the removal of content from the entity with copyright exemption in place. (archive.org)
- Said entity (archive.org) does promise to remove content when requested per their terms of service but, also have a DMCA exemption for the archiving of certain media types.
- Media falling under copyright exemption would then not have the same culpability, if any, in regard to the original Terms of Service, as there is already an exemption in place granting access to the work(s) in question.
C
ctlw83
Guest
It’s been over a month since I sent emails out to a variety of game companies on their internal positions regarding Archive.org and TOSEC. I also sent follow-up emails. I have received no responses to any of my inquiries. I will also note that there are multiple Legal pages for SEGA and NONE of the email addresses on any of those pages actually work.
I find it frustrating that when someone legitimately seeks to do the right thing, they can’t get an answer.
Anyway, I will stick with my line of thinking as stated earlier in the thread. Until proven otherwise the Console Living Room and TOSEC sections of Archive.org, which are sections run/sponsored by Archive.org themselves, are under a DMCA exemption and are fair game until otherwise specified.
I find it frustrating that when someone legitimately seeks to do the right thing, they can’t get an answer.
Anyway, I will stick with my line of thinking as stated earlier in the thread. Until proven otherwise the Console Living Room and TOSEC sections of Archive.org, which are sections run/sponsored by Archive.org themselves, are under a DMCA exemption and are fair game until otherwise specified.
C
CatholicSpirit
Guest
Funny story… So I was wondering the same thing, is this emulator situation legit or massive sinning. This is what I did, I bought my favorite video game of all time for SNES and found a used game store that let people rent. I donated the game saying, “you can have it so Lon as you rent it out and don’t sell it.” Now, I pretty much could be “trading my game with a friend for a different game on a temporary basis” covering myself as long as they keep their word. And, I went to confession and mentioned my amends in prayer. I had friends that died and I’m like, you know, I’m going to stop the emulation for a while and edit some Catholic stuff on Wikipedia, be a good dude online with my time for God.
Their game swapping continues, and I’ve got some very sweet edits that I feel good about. Be a contributor bro, sharing is caring (with electronics).
Be good!
Their game swapping continues, and I’ve got some very sweet edits that I feel good about. Be a contributor bro, sharing is caring (with electronics).
Be good!
- Status