mr_me Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Yes, in the link right above your post on the MAME project page. That link has nothing about public domain. Something in public domain would have no restrictions and no ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Right. They're not PD. Just like how Vectrex isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlaysWithWolves Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 I think this is super-reasonable for software. Books and films? OK, let the original creators continue to profit from them. I don't think their heirs need that in perpetuity, though. Software feels different, especially since the gap in computing power between 25 years and now is so great. Maybe the curve is flattening out due to the end of Moore's Law, but it seems reasonable to consider Sega Genesis games past the age of being commercially viable. The "not being commercialized" bit would still allow joints like Nintendo to do Virtual Console type things. So where's nuColeco in this? They own stuff, but can't do much with it. Disney infuriates me because they made their money off public domain works and have led the charge on extending copyrights. Oh Disney, why can't I quit you? Original US copyright law was for fourteen years; later extended to an optional fourteen more. I can even understand protecting it for the life of the author, but past that... c'mon. Software does feel different, but maybe that's because it should be considered a patent instead of a copyright? They're basically virtual machines with artistic elements. Of course this is all academic, anyway. Next up: World peace. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+GoldLeader Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Disney infuriates me because they made their money off public domain works and have led the charge on extending copyrights. Oh Disney, why can't I quit you? Original US copyright law was for fourteen years; later extended to an optional fourteen more. I can even understand protecting it for the life of the author, but past that... c'mon. Software does feel different, but maybe that's because it should be considered a patent instead of a copyright? They're basically virtual machines with artistic elements. Of course this is all academic, anyway. Next up: World peace. Next up: World Peace! Haha...There's something so lovely about that statement.... Wouldn't you think it would be easy? Have a database, look up a trademark or copyright, Preferably with a contact address in case someone wants to do a cover tune or home version....Done! They can put a man on the Moon but they can't solve copyright issues! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Next up: World Peace! Haha...There's something so lovely about that statement.... Wouldn't you think it would be easy? Have a database, look up a trademark or copyright, Preferably with a contact address in case someone wants to do a cover tune or home version....Done! They can put a man on the Moon but they can't solve copyright issues! The only way to achieve world peace is to annihilate all the dissenters who do not believe the same way as you do. If all of humanity was like-minded, there would be no reason for global conflict. Many have attempted this method, promising peace, but they only spread war, oppression, and chaos. Barring complete genocide of all dissenters, the second best way to achieve peace is for everyone to agree to disagree on everything. Easier said than done. Disagreement has been shown to be the root cause of conflict, so how does one disagree with their neighbor but still get along? That's the key to world peace, to disagree without conflict. Barring that a new breed of humans who all think, talk, and act the same way, like workers in a colony of bees. And if all humans were the same, who would write the rules? Would we even need rules? Regardless of path of humanity, I predict a lot of conflict in the future. It is part of our history, unfortunately, and unlikely to disappear anytime soon, regardless of the capability of our weapons. Also we should love the bomb, as it makes a good deterrent for armed conflict... /thread. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddlepaddle Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Conflict is required. It leads to change and growth. Without conflict, we would all still be worms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 worms. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gagh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gagh Worms, "Gagh!" Not really a trekkie, but eww... The name of the dish is an onomatopoeia which perfectly describes the reaction of guests it is served to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Ragan Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Well, if Klingon food is too strong for you, we could always have one of the females breastfeed you! 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Well, if Klingon food is too strong for you, we could always have one of the females breastfeed you! Mmmm, I think I'll take the latter! http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/A_Matter_Of_Honor_(episode) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+grips03 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 So how did AT Games secure the rights to the CV games on the CV Flashback? How can the new Coleco say they are back when they did not make Colecovision nor the the Cabbage patch kids? If they have the right to the Coleco name, ok, but who gave them the rights to previous software or other creations they had nothing to do with? Did Sega grant rights to Zaxxon to the people who are now claiming to own the Coleco name? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+grips03 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 The games on the ColecoVision Flashback were licensed from Coleco Holdings and homebrew authors. Atari and other entities have nothing to do with it. How were the games licensed from Coleco Holding when they don't own any of the games? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Presumably most of the rights would of return to the original arcade makers as they are derivative works of copyrights owned by the arcade makers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PikoInteractive Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Presumably most of the rights would of return to the original arcade makers as they are derivative works of copyrights owned by the arcade makers Yeah this happens with any game or port when a company folds or exchanges hands. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Tarzilla Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Yeah this happens with any game or port when a company folds or exchanges hands. And yet, RWB somehow was able to apply for Frenzy, Zaxxon and several other game trademarks despite owning none of the copyrights, software, roms or IP of Coleco Industries. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PikoInteractive Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Yeah dangerous thing to do if you dont have the copyright owner permission/license to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixdownita Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Yeah dangerous thing to do if you dont have the copyright owner permission/license to use. Just to "mind your business" how do you go about when purchasing those rights? In specific how do you make sure that not only the code is correctly copyrighted but also the in game music, artwork etc.... For example even if you could buy Outrun for Genesis from Sega you wouldn't be able to use the artwork for the iconic Ferrari in it as that licensing deal ended, but how would you know? Same for music, look what happened with the Jag port of Xenon II Megablast (blessed and authorized by Bitmap Brothers) .... there was no Megablast music due to licensing .... bummer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andromeda Stardust Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 RWB has been literally spraying bullets from so many different angles, it is a wonder they haven't run out of ammo or wounded themselves from ricochet. Karma can be a bitch, and we will be right here when it catches up to them. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PikoInteractive Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Just to "mind your business" how do you go about when purchasing those rights? In specific how do you make sure that not only the code is correctly copyrighted but also the in game music, artwork etc.... For example even if you could buy Outrun for Genesis from Sega you wouldn't be able to use the artwork for the iconic Ferrari in it as that licensing deal ended, but how would you know? Same for music, look what happened with the Jag port of Xenon II Megablast (blessed and authorized by Bitmap Brothers) .... there was no Megablast music due to licensing .... bummer. Research and asking people that worked on the projects, if they are alive. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) Presumably most of the rights would of return to the original arcade makers as they are derivative works of copyrights owned by the arcade makers What law or case says this happens? Yeah this happens with any game or port when a company folds or exchanges hands. Can you provide some examples of this happening? . Edited June 12, 2017 by mr_me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) Derivative work still would need to follow copyright law’s requirement of originality to be copyright able So if a Arcade game and CV game counterpart are very similar, the CV game may not have a copyright on it own Also a lot of it would depend on license agreement's and they can force surrender of the new coding back also and could have clause on a company folds or exchanges hands or abandonment in selling the licensed product Edited June 12, 2017 by enoofu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) Old Coleco programmed the CV version of Donkey Kong licensing the graphics and music/sound from Nintendo. That program code is an original work and copyright owned by the creator Coleco. Only the graphics and sounds/music belong to Nintendo. Either the contract between Coleco and Nintendo says the code goes to Nintendo or it doesn't. If it doesnt say anything then the code remaised with old Coleco. [Copyrights are never abandoned even if the company dissolved. They do expire after a long time. And at that time they become public domain.] Edited June 12, 2017 by mr_me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Old Coleco programmed the CV version of Donkey Kong licensing the graphics and music/sound from Nintendo. That program code is an original work and copyright owned by the creator Coleco Coleco Licensed Donkey Kong Arcade for Consoles, this included the original coding Any changes to the coding to make it work on the CV would still probably not make the new program code a original work Copyrights are never abandoned Yes the creator can abandon a copyright or transfer it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_me Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) Coleco Licensed Donkey Kong Arcade for Consoles, this included the original coding Any changes to the coding to make it work on the CV would still probably not make the new program code a original work Yes the creator can abandon a copyright or transfer it Have a look at the Colecovision DK box. It says program copyright 1982 Coleco Industries . You have a point with companies no longer in business. Normally assets of bankrupt companies are liquidated. But it could happen that assets are not transferred and the copyrights of dissolved companies become unenforceable (according to Wikipedia). Coleco Industries went bankrupt, and there are theories as to where the copyright assets went. Someone may have them and not know, that doesnt mean its not enforceable. Edited June 12, 2017 by mr_me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoofu Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) copyright 1982 Coleco Industries . Doesn't mean the copyright is enforceable Supposely 1985 Telegames bought the colecovision IP Supposedly ATgames does have bootleg game in their machines http://bootleggames.wikia.com/wiki/AtGames Edited June 12, 2017 by enoofu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.