ColecoVision Homebrews & IP Rights Discussion

[DuggerVideoGames]

All patents for retro game consoles (up to just prior to N64) are defunct now, which is why we see clone consoles everywhere. Nintendo sued Generation NEX in 2004 and lost because the patents to the Famicom dated back to 1983, which had already expired at the time of the lawsuit. Then Yobo and everyone else were free to make clone systems. Only very recently we have near exact replicas of the N64 controller replacements from Yobo and Hyperkin, thanks to the controller portion of the N64 patents now being expired. Certain other aspects of N64 hardware are still under patent which is why we haven't seen full clones of it yet, that and the hardware complexity being much more sophisticated than 8-bit and 16-bit hardware.

It's nice to see those clones around, because you don't exactly find a Gamecube or N64 controller lying around whenever you need one. Yobo and MadCatz to the rescue (at least years ago when I bought those controls; no idea if they still make them now).

[Schizophretard]

If someone programs a version of Boulderdash without First Star's permission they would be in violation of First Star's copyrights. But it is not piracy. If someone makes unauthorised copies of someone else's software that would be piracy. Pretty sure this has been explained already.

 

 

Perhaps. But addressing your question, in one case someone is spending hundreds if not thousands of hours of work programming another version of Boulderdash. In doing so they infringed on some graphics/music copyright. I don't call that piracy.

 

In the second case someone spends a few minutes making a copy of a complete software works. I call this piracy.

 

I have been using the dictionary definition this whole time while you have been using your own personal definition. Therefore, shouldn't it be expected that I would remained confused even after it has been explained already? It is kind of hard to help me see where the line between where legal ends and illegal begins is located if you are using a definition that isn't even at that line. Cardillo was referring to a homebrew that is an unauthorized port that is copied and sold by someone else as a bootleg of a bootleg. That is another way of saying,"Copying and illegally selling an item that itself is already illegal to sell." or,"Pirating an item that itself is an example of pirating." So, to determine if he is or isn't correct can only be determined by where the line actual is and not where we want it to be. Anyway, I don't get why you would consider one example of copyright infringement not piracy over another example just because of the amount of work done. There is a lot more work involved in running a pot plantation over selling pot on the streets but they are both drug dealing.

[mr_me]

Yes, they are both illegal. However, if you infringe on someone's copyright in the first example, I'm not sure that you would be arrested for a crime. A court could award damages.

 

If you make a copy of someone's software, it is considered theft and a crime punishable by law. Piracy is a form of copyright infringement but copyright infringement is not necessarily piracy. Bootlegging software is synonymous with software piracy.

 

Led Zeppelin has committed copyright infringement but their albums continue to sell. They certainly owe and paid money for that. If I make copies of Led Zeppelin II albums and start selling them I can be arrested and the copies confiscated.

[Schizophretard]

I understand that the specifics of a crime can determine different punishments. However, I don't see how the definitions of piracy lead to this conclusion,"Piracy is a form of copyright infringement but copyright infringement is not necessarily piracy." The definitions for piracy read more like a synonym for copyright infringement than a form of copyright infringement or more like the other way around where it is copyright infringement that is a form of piracy and not piracy as a form of copyright infringement because piracy encompasses more things than just copyright infringement.

[mr_me]

Copyright infringement in some of the examples discussed may not even be criminal. The affected party will have to sue you in a civil case. Software piracy is criminal and the police can arrest you.

 

Edit:

Maybe you should provide examples where a musician using someone else's melody in their song is referred to as piracy. Or when someone's video game was found to resemble parts of another video game is referred to as piracy.

Edited May 25, 2017 by mr_me

[Flojomojo]

Perhaps part of the problem is that the "piracy" word has been overused, especially by industry groups.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/15/piracy_is_a_form_of_theft_and_copyright_infringement_is_neither.html

 

It's also possible that someone is being deliberately obtuse. :-)

[Swami]

See this article:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-bollywood-fight-piracy-plagiarism-23344

 

The widest technical definition of piracy may include remakes, according to a dictionary, but that use appears to be archaic now; I really REALLY doubt you will ever hear the term used practically in regards to a remake, but only to exact duplicates, other than by Cardillo. I checked this out online and never saw piracy refer to a remake of software, movies or music.

 

Here is a business dictionary definition:

 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/piracy.html

 

The definition is not very specific as far as what reproduction includes, but the application they use is for "soft-lifting" which is a form of direct duplication.

 

Webopedia is much more detailed in decribing "software piracy" and does not mention remakes.

 

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/software_piracy.html

 

 

Short definitions lack detail as to what the exact practical use it, while longer, more rigorous definitions only include exact duplication, but might be called less authoritative, which creates this uncertainty you have. However, here is a guide by Stanford on software piracy that does not include remakes as "software piracy".

 

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1999-00/software-piracy/types.html

Edited May 25, 2017 by Swami

[mr_me]

But if we are specifucally talking about the "Kung Fu Master" cartridge maybe Schizophretard has a valid point. That is what started the discussion, is it not; and maybe we got off topic. I'm not familliar with the game, is it a remake or is it a hack of an existing game. Maybe someone can clarify.

 

If it is a remake than it is copyright infringement but not piracy. If it is a hack than you could argue piracy. Now hacking is not necessarily illegal or copyright infringement. However, distributing a hacked game without permission is definetely illegal. What would be better is to seperate the hack from the game and distribute the hack as a patch. The enduser would be responsible for providing a copy of the original game, which they may legally own.

[Flojomojo]

I like Swami's first link from Hollywood Reporter, which distinguishes

 

plagiarism (this is where you would steal the idea, name, and art from an existing work, Kung-Fu Master in this case)

 

from

 

duplication (in which I dump an existing ROM and make a bit-for-bit copy of it)

 

A hack that left the original work largely intact would be infringing, too. Coke Wins would be infringing if it were done without permission, as the code is still mostly Space Invaders. A fan-sub of a popular movie or anime is technically infringement, as it's not worth much without the original work attached to it. The fan edits of Star Wars are technically infringement, but Disney is looking the other way so long as there's no confusion in the marketplace that this isn't the real thing.

 

I believe that 35 years after abandonment is super relevant. Cardillo can cry into his jammies every night, but without legal action, he's not going to get what he thinks he wants.

[Downland1983]

 

I'd like to see that! The only group to ever come out ahead are the lawyers. It's like WOPR at the end of War Games, sometimes the best move is not to play.

 

Actually, that was Joshua (controlling the WOPR) who learned that lesson.

 

[Flojomojo]

But if we are specifucally talking about the "Kung Fu Master" cartridge maybe Schizophretard has a valid point. That is what started the discussion, is it not; and maybe we got off topic. I'm not familliar with the game, is it a remake or is it a hack of an existing game. Maybe someone can clarify.

 

If it is a remake than it is copyright infringement but not piracy. If it is a hack than you could argue piracy. Now hacking is not necessarily illegal or copyright infringement. However, distributing a hacked game without permission is definetely illegal. What would be better is to seperate the hack from the game and distribute the hack as a patch. The enduser would be responsible for providing a copy of the original game, which they may legally own.

 

Kung-Fu Master is an old arcade game. It belongs to Irem and/or Data East, and no one has the legal right to port or remake it without their permission.

 

Cardillo is not wrong, just going about it in a counterproductive way.

 

The market for plagiarized old game concepts on Colecovision hardware is commercially insignificant. It's like, "you really shouldn't pee in the ocean."

[mr_me]

I'm familiar with Kung Fu Master the arcade game; the doughnut shop near my high school had one. I was asking if this cartridge had all new code or mostly copied code as it has to do with Schizophretard's question. That code was likely not written by (and doesn't belong to) Irem or Data East if it was taken from an MSX cartridge. But you might be right; maybe nobody cares...

 

Edit: Looks like that MSX cartridge was published by "ASCII Corp". Apologies if that has been mentioned already.

Edited May 25, 2017 by mr_me

[Swami]

I would think you would have to do a lot of reprogramming for the ColecoVision version due to all the different components in a CV vs an MSX as well as differences in some of the chip architectures, although the Z80 chip may be the same (or compatible).

[mr_me]

The CPU and video processor are the same. MSX has more ram and a different sound processor. I think the SGM add-on they made for the Colecovision addresses the ram and adds the exact same sound processor. There is likely some tweaking involved. Maybe the controller I/O is different.

[Andromeda Stardust]

The CPU and video processor are the same. MSX has more ram and a different sound processor. I think the SGM add-on they made for the Colecovision addresses the ram and adds the exact same sound processor. There is likely some tweaking involved. Maybe the controller I/O is different.

It is also likely that the way the CPU and video hardware are interconnected, and the way controllers, sound chips, cart bus, and other peripherals interface with the components, and the way IRQs and registers are assigned, can be very different and require extensive reworking to get software from one device to run on another, even if both devices share mostly the same hardware. For instance, the 5200 and certain 8-bit models share extremely similar hardware components, but everything is wired differently and uses a completely different control interface. This makes converting software from 8-bit to 5200 and visa-versa and extremely non-trivial process, such that it is often easier to create a clean port using the old code base as a reference, than to directly convert one platform's code for the other. MSX and Colecovision are in a similar boat, possibly moreso as they were not even the same company.

 

Notwithstanding, Coleco owns only the logo and trademark, not the original console, nor the original code, and certainly has no right to object to unauthorized arcade ports based upon IP by other companies. If homebrewers rescind their use of the Coleco logos and branding on their products, do not copy the style or design of vintage labels/boxarts, and place a "for play on Colecovision" decal with a disclaimer "this product is not sponsored or endorsed by Coleco Holdings" then there is not a damn thing the existing trademark owners can do about it. Unlicensed developers and accessory makers have been happily doing this for decades with legal precedence from the courts that they are allowed to produced unlicensed devices provided they do not violate DCMA, copyright, or patent laws doing it.

 

The companies who own the original arcade IP, such as Konami, Sega, Namco, Data East, et al, have so far turned a blind eye to our hobby and allowed homebrewers to pay homage to these classic arcade titles, as well as produce new IP not based on classic arcade titles. Only Nintendo has been adamant about taking down fan made video games based on their IP, specifically Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon, and if other IP owners follow suit, the games can simply be hacked or remade to remove graphical and audio elements resembling the original games.

 

Coleco Holdings / RWB has no authority to take down games using IP they do not own, whether they violate someone else's rights or not. They only own the name, and possibly the font and rainbow logo though their claim to the original design is currently in question. I urge everyone inolved in the Coleco homebrew scene (and Atari, Intellivision, Nintendo, Sega or any other scenes) to rebrand themselves and remove or update logos, brands, or design templates on boxart or labels that have been stylistically copied from bitd releases. This includes for instance silver or red label Atari templates, Activision, Imagic templates, parodies or exact replicas of the Nintendo "Seal" on NES homebrews, which closely resemble the traditional golden elliptical starburst, etc.

 

Do not provide additional fuel to throw on the fire that mega-corporations can use to burn us! And RWB is hardly a "mega-corporation" more or less acting with a sixth grade bully mentality. RWB sees a small fry who has something he wants, then feels entitled to take it away by force. Even Nintendo, essentially the "Disney" of video game companies, has been highly selective of when they choose to slam down their legal gavel (mostly targeting commercial scale pirate operations, and less frequently fan projects that develop a large following) so as not to disrupt or fragment their current fanbase. In the case of fan projects, it is a matter of "um, you can't do this," and the creators of the project generally comply with the request by shutting down their own stuff, with no legal or civil repercussions to the creator.

[mr_me]

Or the upgraded Colecovision and MSX could be so similar that it's trivial. Or somewhere in between.

 

I think the homebrewers have a case regarding the cv trademark and logo. They have been using it much longer than RWB. Why should RWB have it?

 

--------

I've read that the Atari 800 and Atari 5200 are so similar that the Atari 800 makes an excellent 5200 development system.

Edited May 25, 2017 by mr_me

[Swami]

It is also likely that the way the CPU and video hardware are interconnected, and the way controllers, sound chips, cart bus, and other peripherals interface with the components, and the way IRQs and registers are assigned, can be very different and require extensive reworking to get software from one device to run on another, even if both devices share mostly the same hardware. For instance, the 5200 and certain 8-bit models share extremely similar hardware components, but everything is wired differently and uses a completely different control interface. This makes converting software from 8-bit to 5200 and visa-versa and extremely non-trivial process, such that it is often easier to create a clean port using the old code base as a reference, than to directly convert one platform's code for the other. MSX and Colecovision are in a similar boat, possibly moreso as they were not even the same company.

 

Notwithstanding, Coleco owns only the logo and trademark, not the original console, nor the original code, and certainly has no right to object to unauthorized arcade ports based upon IP by other companies. If homebrewers rescind their use of the Coleco logos and branding on their products, do not copy the style or design of vintage labels/boxarts, and place a "for play on Colecovision" decal with a disclaimer "this product is not sponsored or endorsed by Coleco Holdings" then there is not a damn thing the existing trademark owners can do about it. Unlicensed developers and accessory makers have been happily doing this for decades with legal precedence from the courts that they are allowed to produced unlicensed devices provided they do not violate DCMA, copyright, or patent laws doing it.

 

The companies who own the original arcade IP, such as Konami, Sega, Namco, Data East, et al, have so far turned a blind eye to our hobby and allowed homebrewers to pay homage to these classic arcade titles, as well as produce new IP not based on classic arcade titles. Only Nintendo has been adamant about taking down fan made video games based on their IP, specifically Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon, and if other IP owners follow suit, the games can simply be hacked or remade to remove graphical and audio elements resembling the original games.

 

Coleco Holdings / RWB has no authority to take down games using IP they do not own, whether they violate someone else's rights or not. They only own the name, and possibly the font and rainbow logo though their claim to the original design is currently in question. I urge everyone inolved in the Coleco homebrew scene (and Atari, Intellivision, Nintendo, Sega or any other scenes) to rebrand themselves and remove or update logos, brands, or design templates on boxart or labels that have been stylistically copied from bitd releases. This includes for instance silver or red label Atari templates, Activision, Imagic templates, parodies or exact replicas of the Nintendo "Seal" on NES homebrews, which closely resemble the traditional golden elliptical starburst, etc.

 

Do not provide additional fuel to throw on the fire that mega-corporations can use to burn us! And RWB is hardly a "mega-corporation" more or less acting with a sixth grade bully mentality. RWB sees a small fry who has something he wants, then feels entitled to take it away by force. Even Nintendo, essentially the "Disney" of video game companies, has been highly selective of when they choose to slam down their legal gavel (mostly targeting commercial scale pirate operations, and less frequently fan projects that develop a large following) so as not to disrupt or fragment their current fanbase. In the case of fan projects, it is a matter of "um, you can't do this," and the creators of the project generally comply with the request by shutting down their own stuff, with no legal or civil repercussions to the creator.

To the point of what Schizophrenoid was wondering: was the coding necessary to move from MSX Kung Fu Master to a ColecoVision port enough to classify it as a remake (thus plagiarism of the uncaring code owners) or a minimal hack and copy (thus piracy of the uncaring code owners). I think, due to differences in the component architecture of the electronics and wiring, it would require many hours and would qualify as a remake, and not piracy of the code owners, as Cardillo claimed.

[mr_me]

This is a quote from the SGM product page.

 

"So practically all those "finished" MSX games from the mid 80's can now be translated back to ColecoVision with very few changes."

[Swami]

Hmmmm, yes I remember that post now. Sounds easier than I thought.

[Andromeda Stardust]

This is a quote from the SGM product page.

 

"So practically all those "finished" MSX games from the mid 80's can now be translated back to ColecoVision with very few changes."

 

Hmmmm, yes I remember that post now. Sounds easier than I thought.

Unless it is so straight forward that someone could write a command line based executable that inputs an MSX ROM and outputs a Colecovision ROM, it is hardly trivial. Even converting an NES game from one mapper to another (such as FDS to MMC3) is oftentimes an extremely non-trivial affair requiring many hours of disassembly and bit manipulation. Compare Loopy's conversion of FDS Lost Levels to MMC3 for instance. That stuff takes a lot of work.

[Flojomojo]

There might be tools or techniques for these conversions. I know that most software emulators for Colecovision also run MSX code, and most Atari 8-bit emulators can run 5200 code. I have no idea what is going on under the hood though.

 

Kosmic, the rest of your long post up there is super awesome.

[Swami]

 

Unless it is so straight forward that someone could write a command line based executable that inputs an MSX ROM and outputs a Colecovision ROM, it is hardly trivial. Even converting an NES game from one mapper to another (such as FDS to MMC3) is oftentimes an extremely non-trivial affair requiring many hours of disassembly and bit manipulation. Compare Loopy's conversion of FDS Lost Levels to MMC3 for instance. That stuff takes a lot of work.

This has progressed to something more technical than I can decide on myself. I can't really say what opcode's quoted comment about changes is referring to or the effort to port an msx game to the colecovision, so I will leave that for greater programming minds to answer.

 

Although perhaps a digression, I think it is important for people to remember bootlegging homebrewers' games can seriously cripple their ability to make them as they would take a big loss for development and production. Porting an msx game to the cv doesn't cripple anyone. If a cv owner wanted to play an msx game and a home brewer did not port it, their other choices would be to (1) buy a used msx and software, if they could find it, in which case the code owners still don't see a dime, (2) get a bootleg rom and use an emulator, with the same result, or (3) wait until you die for the code owners to Get involved and do something to help. I don't think Cardillo is considering this distinction, although he says he supports homebrewers. This is a hobby for most if not all homebrewers, not a scam or a living.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Swami

[mr_me]

There is a way to do it without pirating someone else's software. Separate the hack as a patch and distribute the patch. The end-user applies the patch and puts the patched rom file on a colecovision memory cart for play. The end user would be responsible for getting a copy of the original rom image that the homebrewer has no right distributing. However, collectors wont be happy without boxes and cartridges to collect.

 

Edit: if you have to distribute someone else's software without permission, it should at least be done with some respect to the copyright owner.

 

Have a look at this thread regarding hacks. http://atariage.com/forums/topic/165728-dantructor/

Edited May 26, 2017 by mr_me

[newcoleco]

Edit: if you have to distribute someone else's software without permission, it should at least be done with some respect to the copyright owner.

 

Have a look at this thread regarding hacks. http://atariage.com/forums/topic/165728-dantructor/

And again, my work is mentionned. I'm omnipresent. XD

 

And (like a broken record) I just do it for fun... with hope it's still possible.

[DuggerVideoGames]

And again, my work is mentionned. I'm omnipresent. XD

 

And (like a broken record) I just do it for fun... with hope it's still possible.

I'm grateful for your work. Furthermore, I'm grateful for your fixes. If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who fixed that HORRIBLE glitch in Turbo. I remember when it would say 00 cars passed, and then a car passes you and it says you passed 99 cars! If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who fixed that. What Sega feckupeth, sir Daniel B. fixeth!

Edited May 27, 2017 by DuggerVideoGames