Flashback Portable VS GamePort ?

[Gameport]

The previous case (Atari v. JS&A) found that ROM backup devices were unnecessary due to the fact that cartriges were such robust devices. In the opinion of the court, cartridges did not fall under the "archival" clause of copyright law which was intended to protect against volatile media such as magnetic disks. With this defense out of the way, the court was unable to find a legal reason for the JS&A device to exist.

 

The current existence of emulators and new devices changes that equation. In order to use your property, you need to space-shift the data into a form that can be read by the device. This may fall under the same fair-use arguments that made VCRs legal. (see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.)

 

I assume you are referring to the betamax case; it hasn't been transposed in any uses similar to emulators / reproduction, etc so far, but research from our end seems tto indicate that it doesn't provide any coverage. (more on that below)

 

It would be interesting to see if any company would attempt to test this in court. (Generally speaking, devices to archive 30 year old ROMs simply hasn't been a big enough deal.) Keep in mind, however, that it's NOT legal to download a copy from someone else. In order to show fair use (which I would remind the reader has not been tested in a court of law), you must copy the ROM from a cartridge yourself.

 

This is correct, technically almost everyone using an emulator breaks the law as most people didn't do their own rom dumps.

 

There is nothing so far making the use of emulators or any similar devices covered by this famous case; on the other hand, the use of emulators is very similar to the use of MP3 players. In this case you do not use the right of making backup copies (ruled out for cartridges), but you are essentially moving the copyrighted content to another medium; while the differences are pretty significant, a judgement on emulators could affect cases related to MP3 and vice-versa.

A new law has been proposed that would make illegal all the steps from design to ownership of any devices that would have *only* illegal uses; there are already current restrictions on this, but if the new law passes it will tighten.

This becomes very tricky in some cases, let's just say someone here plays Frogger on the coleco; he hasn't done the rom dump, the cart was developped to run on the coleco, by parker brothers under a Konami license; so not doing the rom dump himself is breaking the law so far in the US; but who would be the plaintiff? Coleco, Parker brothers or Konami? And should one of them win, an emulator's replay of that specific game represents just a fraction of what it can do (specifically 1/games in library), not to mention being used as a development platform, etc. so, maybe if you get atari, activision, etc together saying they don't want their roms to be replayed on emulators, then only it would make a significant part of the emulator's capabilities illegal.

 

 

As far as we (as in Gameport) are concerned, our device has legal uses besides playing games and the USA are not even our primary market target, so this is not a big concern. Also, I doubt many emulator users are very keen on 'ethics', how many bought all the games they have, still own them and made their own dumps? (and not more than three total backups?) - we all know

Edited June 1, 2007 by Gameport

[werejag]

i didnt see a responce to my inquiry. how much will this run

[Lord Helmet]

i didnt see a responce to my inquiry. how much will this run

 

According to the GP forums, $50-$75, depending how it's purchased (online vs. retail).

[jbanes]

I assume you are referring to the betamax case

That is what it's popularly known as, yes.

 

it hasn't been transposed in any uses similar to emulators / reproduction, etc so far, but research from our end seems tto indicate that it doesn't provide any coverage.

 

There is nothing so far making the use of emulators or any similar devices covered by this famous case; on the other hand, the use of emulators is very similar to the use of MP3 players. In this case you do not use the right of making backup copies (ruled out for cartridges), but you are essentially moving the copyrighted content to another medium; while the differences are pretty significant, a judgement on emulators could affect cases related to MP3 and vice-versa.

Agreed on the MP3 connection, but I don't see how this rules out fair use for cartridge images? Unless you're concerned that MP3 ripping will be found to not be fair use? Stupid public statements from the RIAA aside, the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case somewhat clarified the situation with MP3s. In the arguments, MGM made this statement:

The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.

The judges appeared to reaffirm this in their decision, citing the "betamax case" as precedent:

Sony’s rule is strongly technology protecting. The rule

deliberately makes it difficult for courts to find secondary

liability where new technology is at issue. It establishes

that the law will not impose copyright liability upon the

distributors of dual-use technologies (who do not themselves

engage in unauthorized copying) unless the product

in question will be used almost exclusively to infringe

copyrights (or unless they actively induce infringements as

we today describe). Sony thereby recognizes that the

copyright laws are not intended to discourage or to control

the emergence of new technologies, including (perhaps

especially) those that help disseminate information and

ideas more broadly or more efficiently. Thus Sony’s rule

shelters VCRs, typewriters, tape recorders, photocopiers,

computers, cassette players, compact disc burners, digital

video recorders, MP3 players, Internet search engines, and

peer-to-peer software. But Sony’s rule does not shelter

descramblers, even if one could theoretically use a descrambler

in a noninfringing way. 464 U. S., at 441–442;

Compare Cable/Home Communication Corp., supra, at

837–850 (developer liable for advertising television signal

descrambler), with Vault Corp., supra, at 262 (primary use

infringing but a substantial noninfringing use).

 

Sony’s rule is forward looking. It does not confine its

scope to a static snapshot of a product’s current uses

(thereby threatening technologies that have undeveloped

future markets). Rather, as the VCR example makes

clear, a product’s market can evolve dramatically over

time. And Sony—by referring to a capacity for substantial

noninfringing uses—recognizes that fact. Sony’s word

“capable” refers to a plausible, not simply a theoretical,

likelihood that such uses will come to pass, and that fact

anchors Sony in practical reality. Cf. Aimster, supra, at

651.

(Emphasis added.)

 

Based on the current case law, I think that ripped MP3s are fairly safe against prosecution. As you mentioned, this strengthens the case for ripping ROMs. Indeed, the MGM v. Grokster case seems to affirm the practice by suggesting that any copying for non-infringing purposes is "fair use".

 

A new law has been proposed that would make illegal all the steps from design to ownership of any devices that would have *only* illegal uses; there are already current restrictions on this, but if the new law passes it will tighten.

I presume you are referring to the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006? (Nay, 2007!) As I explained here, I wouldn't worry too much about this proposal becoming law. Congress dropped the first one in the dust bin, and is even less likely to look at the second one upon considering who submitted it.

 

This becomes very tricky in some cases, let's just say someone here plays Frogger on the coleco; he hasn't done the rom dump, the cart was developped to run on the coleco, by parker brothers under a Konami license; so not doing the rom dump himself is breaking the law so far in the US; but who would be the plaintiff? Coleco, Parker brothers or Konami?

You have to be careful here. There are two separate issues:

 

1. Did the consumer willingly violate copyright law?

 

2. Is the device (e.g. emulator, ROM ripper, etc.) only useful for violating copyright law?

 

Your example appears to speak to the first issue. In which case both Parker Bros. and Konami might have a reasonable case against the infringer. However, that would not result in a decision against the emulator.

 

In the case of an emulator's legality, you'd probably see Coleco bring the case. However, the other parties are potentially damaged as well, so they can pursue their own cases. I personally think that a judge would find substantial non-infringing uses for emulators, but his decision might be tempered by the lack of devices on the market to "rip" the ROMs. However, the existence of homebrew communities who use these programs as development tools combined with the legal commercial uses of emulators (e.g. GameTap, IntellivisionLives!, Wii Virtual Console, etc.) would make a pretty good case for their continued existence.

 

As far as we (as in Gameport) are concerned, our device has legal uses besides playing games and the USA are not even our primary market target, so this is not a big concern. Also, I doubt many emulator users are very keen on 'ethics', how many bought all the games they have, still own them and made their own dumps? (and not more than three total backups?) - we all know

I don't know about you, but I just want a device to play Deimos Lander on.

[mos6507]

According to the GP forums, $50-$75, depending how it's purchased (online vs. retail).

 

 

That's pretty amazing if you can pull off that pricing, to have something with a peripheral microcontroller, flash, the screen, and an FPGA capable of running entire console chipsets. What you are describing is like a crunched down Commodore-One, really.

[jbanes]

According to the GP forums, $50-$75, depending how it's purchased (online vs. retail).

That's pretty amazing if you can pull off that pricing, to have something with a peripheral microcontroller, flash, the screen, and an FPGA capable of running entire console chipsets. What you are describing is like a crunched down Commodore-One, really.

To be pessimistic for a moment, I have a feeling that the price given is the mass production price. The C-One is a very generic board that is built in small quantities. Thus its street price reflects the high cost of low production runs. If the C-One was turned into a mass produced product (especially with all the excess I/O removed) it could come much closer to the Gameport price.

[Shawn]

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I don't play one on TV either. Only on the internets.

 

BUT.... Last night he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!!!

[jbanes]

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I don't play one on TV either. Only on the internets.

 

BUT.... Last night he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!!!

:thumbsup:

[Gorf]

The spec's sound good, but I find it rather interesting...

 

Gameport sounds exactly like Eric Carbill's "System X" project he posted onto his website a few years back -

 

A system around an Spartan 3 FPGA that allowed cores to be loaded into it so it could be a 2600, arcade machine, etc... He even mentions how it could be made to be a portable.

 

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

Yeah it sounds an awful lot like a system I was planning/working on.....hmmmmmm.

 

 

I'll stick with tried and true tech and industry leaders. Bring on the Flashback baby!

[raskar42]

i might bet both

[[d2f]Iggy*SJB]

I assume you are referring to the betamax case

That is what it's popularly known as, yes.

 

it hasn't been transposed in any uses similar to emulators / reproduction, etc so far, but research from our end seems tto indicate that it doesn't provide any coverage.

 

There is nothing so far making the use of emulators or any similar devices covered by this famous case; on the other hand, the use of emulators is very similar to the use of MP3 players. In this case you do not use the right of making backup copies (ruled out for cartridges), but you are essentially moving the copyrighted content to another medium; while the differences are pretty significant, a judgement on emulators could affect cases related to MP3 and vice-versa.

Agreed on the MP3 connection, but I don't see how this rules out fair use for cartridge images? Unless you're concerned that MP3 ripping will be found to not be fair use? Stupid public statements from the RIAA aside, the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case somewhat clarified the situation with MP3s. In the arguments, MGM made this statement:

The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.

The judges appeared to reaffirm this in their decision, citing the "betamax case" as precedent:

Sony’s rule is strongly technology protecting. The rule

deliberately makes it difficult for courts to find secondary

liability where new technology is at issue. It establishes

that the law will not impose copyright liability upon the

distributors of dual-use technologies (who do not themselves

engage in unauthorized copying) unless the product

in question will be used almost exclusively to infringe

copyrights (or unless they actively induce infringements as

we today describe). Sony thereby recognizes that the

copyright laws are not intended to discourage or to control

the emergence of new technologies, including (perhaps

especially) those that help disseminate information and

ideas more broadly or more efficiently. Thus Sony’s rule

shelters VCRs, typewriters, tape recorders, photocopiers,

computers, cassette players, compact disc burners, digital

video recorders, MP3 players, Internet search engines, and

peer-to-peer software. But Sony’s rule does not shelter

descramblers, even if one could theoretically use a descrambler

in a noninfringing way. 464 U. S., at 441–442;

Compare Cable/Home Communication Corp., supra, at

837–850 (developer liable for advertising television signal

descrambler), with Vault Corp., supra, at 262 (primary use

infringing but a substantial noninfringing use).

 

Sony’s rule is forward looking. It does not confine its

scope to a static snapshot of a product’s current uses

(thereby threatening technologies that have undeveloped

future markets). Rather, as the VCR example makes

clear, a product’s market can evolve dramatically over

time. And Sony—by referring to a capacity for substantial

noninfringing uses—recognizes that fact. Sony’s word

“capable” refers to a plausible, not simply a theoretical,

likelihood that such uses will come to pass, and that fact

anchors Sony in practical reality. Cf. Aimster, supra, at

651.

(Emphasis added.)

 

Based on the current case law, I think that ripped MP3s are fairly safe against prosecution. As you mentioned, this strengthens the case for ripping ROMs. Indeed, the MGM v. Grokster case seems to affirm the practice by suggesting that any copying for non-infringing purposes is "fair use".

 

A new law has been proposed that would make illegal all the steps from design to ownership of any devices that would have *only* illegal uses; there are already current restrictions on this, but if the new law passes it will tighten.

I presume you are referring to the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006? (Nay, 2007!) As I explained here, I wouldn't worry too much about this proposal becoming law. Congress dropped the first one in the dust bin, and is even less likely to look at the second one upon considering who submitted it.

 

This becomes very tricky in some cases, let's just say someone here plays Frogger on the coleco; he hasn't done the rom dump, the cart was developped to run on the coleco, by parker brothers under a Konami license; so not doing the rom dump himself is breaking the law so far in the US; but who would be the plaintiff? Coleco, Parker brothers or Konami?

You have to be careful here. There are two separate issues:

 

1. Did the consumer willingly violate copyright law?

 

2. Is the device (e.g. emulator, ROM ripper, etc.) only useful for violating copyright law?

 

Your example appears to speak to the first issue. In which case both Parker Bros. and Konami might have a reasonable case against the infringer. However, that would not result in a decision against the emulator.

 

In the case of an emulator's legality, you'd probably see Coleco bring the case. However, the other parties are potentially damaged as well, so they can pursue their own cases. I personally think that a judge would find substantial non-infringing uses for emulators, but his decision might be tempered by the lack of devices on the market to "rip" the ROMs. However, the existence of homebrew communities who use these programs as development tools combined with the legal commercial uses of emulators (e.g. GameTap, IntellivisionLives!, Wii Virtual Console, etc.) would make a pretty good case for their continued existence.

 

As far as we (as in Gameport) are concerned, our device has legal uses besides playing games and the USA are not even our primary market target, so this is not a big concern. Also, I doubt many emulator users are very keen on 'ethics', how many bought all the games they have, still own them and made their own dumps? (and not more than three total backups?) - we all know

I don't know about you, but I just want a device to play Deimos Lander on.

 

Ok, suppose a person owns a cart, and downloads a "ripped" copy off of the net? Suppose they can't afford the means to buy the hardware to do the rip themselves? Suppose they aren't computer literate enough to do it themself? Why should they be shut out from playing a game they legally own?

 

There are many arguements on this angle. Take "Pac Man Fever"........ B&G were not allowed access to their own recordings....so they re-made the album. Those of us who purchased the album(and/or cassette) feel that we should have access to the recording on a medium we use otherwise. I haven't had a functional record player for almost 20 years. I have no way to hook my tape deck into my computer.....

But someone else did.

I can prove ownership of the original medium......so where is the infringement?

[SalemFrost7800]

I noticed the Gameport website was down, is this project dead or is it just a site update?

[TwinChargers]

I noticed the Gameport website was down, is this project dead or is it just a site update?

 

Thats what I'd like to know!!

[raskar42]

I noticed the Gameport website was down, is this project dead or is it just a site update?

 

Thats what I'd like to know!!

 

 

 

doom sayer's dire prediction:

 

both gameport and flashback2p have been canceled. weep for our loss, you retro gaming peoples.

 

oh calamity.

[Fort Apocalypse]

doom sayer's dire prediction:

 

both gameport and flashback2p have been canceled. weep for our loss, you retro gaming peoples.

 

oh calamity.

 

Can't say much for gameport, but for the FB2p:

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1303818

 

and

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism

 

[raskar42]

doom sayer's dire prediction:

 

both gameport and flashback2p have been canceled. weep for our loss, you retro gaming peoples.

 

oh calamity.

 

Can't say much for gameport, but for the FB2p:

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1303818

 

and

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism

 

 

 

 

you be optimistic

 

ima go get drunk

i'm so depressed

[SalemFrost7800]

I noticed the Gameport website was down, is this project dead or is it just a site update?

 

I just got this email from Gameport:

 

"we have some problems with the site, but the project is still active and we will publish a major (overdue) update very soon. thank you for your interest in GamePort"

[raskar42]

hope!

[raskar42]

maybe we should start a new thread

 

Flashback 3 vs. Gameport

 

would you buy an officially liscenced, nominally improved Atari flashback that will hook up to your tv (again)

or a Gameport you can take anywhere?

[Gregory DG]

I want a portable 2600. I don't care how, why, or when... That's what I want.

[raskar42]

I want a portable 2600. I don't care how, why, or when... That's what I want.

 

gameport will play 2600 games.....

[werejag]

maybe we should start a new thread

 

Flashback 3 vs. Gameport

 

would you buy an officially liscenced, nominally improved Atari flashback that will hook up to your tv (again)

or a Gameport you can take anywhere?

 

due to Atari's lack of action i guess ill be forced to buy a gameport. this is a major disgrace for Atari

[SalemFrost7800]

Here is the new case design for the GAMEPORT

 

Edited August 4, 2007 by SalemFrost7800

[Gregory DG]

Ugh... Looks like one of those girl pocket diaries...

[nathanallan]

Mr. Gameport,

Looks like your machine is thrilling a lot of people here. I have counted at least three threads that it's been mentioned (haven't looked at them *all*) in one way or another. I must say, it looks more and more appealing as time goes on. The flip screen is attractive, too. Question: Will it be able, later with maybe firmware updates, to emulate 16 and 32 bit games? Atari ST games, maybe?

 

Is there a release date yet?

 

Nathan