Homebrew Publishers

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Do not feed the trolls.

 

Put them on ignore and let them alone.

[InactiveX]

Take for example this picture of the Mona Lisa that I took:

mono lisa 2.jpg

 

I own that photo. If someone else took my photo and published it in a book, or sold it as a print without asking my permission or paying me agreed upon royalties, they are infringing on my rights. Even though I obviously didn't create or own the rights to the Mona Lisa, I own the rights to the photo, and someone cannot just go and re-produce that without my consent.

 

I realize that's not the best example, but it was the first thing that came to mind.

 

Bad example. The Mona Lisa, being really old, is in the public domain. Your photo is a copy of something that is in the public domain, and so is therefore in the public domain itself. You do not own the copyright on your photograph.

 

Also, why on earth would someone photograph the Mona Lisa?

Edited December 21, 2018 by InactiveX

[+Spriggy]

 

FFS It's morally simple. Ask for permission! If you get the ... say thanks and move on! Sheesh!

 

[+nanochess]

Bad example. The Mona Lisa, being really old, is in the public domain. Your photo is a copy of something that is in the public domain, and so is therefore in the public domain itself. You do not own the copyright on your photograph.

 

Also, why on earth would someone photograph the Mona Lisa?

Let us not spread misinformation and let me remember you TPR is one of the most informed persons in the world.

 

Legally if you take a picture of a thing in the public domain, the picture is your property, not the "thing".

 

You can sell the picture if you like, but who would buy a badly taken picture? but still is your property.

 

And I went also to Paris, the Louvre museum and took a picture of the Mona Lisa, because I wanted to have my picture along a memory of my trip.

 

BTW I was reading that in Korea apparently the people likes to tell lies, so the only way to prove you went in a trip, is to show the pictures!!!

 

Back to matter, any ROM published by myself in Atariage (or any other place in Internet) is my own property, and subject to my copyright. Unless I explicitely stated it is in the Public Domain, and then even you have moral rights, for example, if you did a drawing for kids and it's being used to promote something you don't like.

 

Anyone selling physical versions without authorization is an abusive person, and anyone buying them is a moron. Legally the affected person has the right to demand both sides, but it would be a loss of time and money for a few dollars, so this is the type of thing where parasites take advantage.

 

Solution: one person at a time, myself I never would use the services of an abusive person and never would buy an unauthorized repro.

[Inky]

While you can argue the legality of it all day long, most people would respect the wishes of the parties responsible if they were asked not to sell copies of these hacks.

 

..Al

 

Princess Rescue,and the Futurama hack come to mind...

[Albert]

Bad example. The Mona Lisa, being really old, is in the public domain. Your photo is a copy of something that is in the public domain, and so is therefore in the public domain itself. You do not own the copyright on your photograph.

This is not true at all. If you take a photo of the Mona Lisa, you still own the copyright of that photo, and you can dictate how it's used. It doesn't matter what you're taking a photo of.

 

Take a look at this page:

 

https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/public-domain/duration/

 

"A reproduction or recording of a public domain work often qualifies for copyright itself"

 

..Al

[Albert]

Legally if you take a picture of a thing in the public domain, the picture is your property, not the "thing".

 

You can sell the picture if you like, but who would buy a badly taken picture? but still is your property.

 

...

Back to matter, any ROM published by myself in Atariage (or any other place in Internet) is my own property, and subject to my copyright.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

..Al

[Inky]

Moral: don't do business with hozer.

[TPR]

Your photo is a copy of something that is in the public domain, and so is therefore in the public domain itself. You do not own the copyright on your photograph. Also, why on earth would someone photograph the Mona Lisa?

 

Let's not confuse "facts" with "feelings." I see it happen all the time as people have different mindsets on how they think about certain things. This is exactly why some people become lawyers and other people become florists. The worst thing you could do, as nanochess mentioned, is spread misinformation about something factual. If you aren't 100% sure of what you're talking about or aren't willing to do the research to look it up, it's probably best that you don't post about a "fact" until you get your facts straight.

 

Now, getting back to the ROM issue, using the site that Albert quoted above, this bit of information is probably very important for people to understand...

 

2) A reproduction or recording of a work will often qualify for copyright itself. That is, a piece of music and a sound recording of that piece of music are two different types of work with two different copyrights. Therefore, the fact that a musical composition is in the public domain does not mean that a recording of that music is in the public domain as well. So if you want to use a Mozart composition in your video, you need to find a sound recording of that composition that is free to use.

 

Especially this part:

a piece of music and a sound recording of that piece of music are two different types of work with two different copyrights.

 

And could be re-written like this to apply to the conversation:

an original video game and a hack of that original video game are two different types of work with two different copyrights.

 

The "misinformation" I see spread quite often is:

"A hack or a console port of a game is already pirated so therefore anyone should have the rights to reproduce it."

 

That is simply not true. Someone that hacks a game or someone who ports a game from one retro console to another console where that game didn't initially exist on, has done "new work" to make that game function the way it is, and that "new work" is also a "new copyright" separate from the original work.

 

Absoultely nobody has the rights to reproduce that "new work" without the permission of the creator of that work.

 

That, my friends, is a "fact" and NOT a "feeling!"

[Inky]

 

Let's not confuse "facts" with "feelings." I see it happen all the time as people have different mindsets on how they think about certain things. This is exactly why some people become lawyers and other people become florists. The worst thing you could do, as nanochess mentioned, is spread misinformation about something factual. If you aren't 100% sure of what you're talking about or aren't willing to do the research to look it up, it's probably best that you don't post about a "fact" until you get your facts straight.

 

Now, getting back to the ROM issue, using the site that Albert quoted above, this bit of information is probably very important for people to understand...

 

 

Especially this part:

a piece of music and a sound recording of that piece of music are two different types of work with two different copyrights.

 

And could be re-written like this to apply to the conversation:

an original video game and a hack of that original video game are two different types of work with two different copyrights.

 

The "misinformation" I see spread quite often is:

"A hack or a console port of a game is already pirated so therefore anyone should have the rights to reproduce it."

 

That is simply not true. Someone that hacks a game or someone who ports a game from one retro console to another console where that game didn't initially exist on, has done "new work" to make that game function the way it is, and that "new work" is also a "new copyright" separate from the original work.

 

Absoultely nobody has the rights to reproduce that "new work" without the permission of the creator of that work.

 

That, my friends, is a "fact" and NOT a "feeling!"

 

 

[chavert]

I don't know if Al has any unreleased ROMs in his possesion, currently, that can be released as custom carts.

 

It's the suspense

[Mr SQL]

Never going to happen, the big boys are not interested in our small niche market. The most you can expect is compilations for various modern platforms but they will never focus resources to produce new titles let alone carts for our again consoles and computers, that boat sailed ages ago.

I think the recent initiative by some of the Publishers on this thread to distribute games with the Retron77 and Atari Flashback consoles may have the potential to precipitate more involvement and interest in Atari games due to the broad distribution - i.e. because you can buy those consoles at Wallmart.

 

It's also nice to see them collaborating and sharing games instead of fighting!

 

 

Do not feed the trolls.

 

Put them on ignore and let them alone.

C'mon please stop following me around on threads calling Troll; you did this on the Reton77 thread too while multiple Hyperkin execs simultaneously wrote to me to thank me for major contributions to their console. I don't mind your development team posting my games for download (you have blanket permission from me), but please stop calling Troll. Fine to make friendly posts or intellectual discussion.

[TPR]

C'mon please stop following me around on threads calling Troll

 

[+SpiceWare]

Hey Thomas, how's that TARDIS treating you?

 

Reply #3:

 

 

Reply #13

[pacman000]

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 2.26.14 PM.png

I wouldn't call anyone in this thread a troll; just folks with different, incompatible views.

 

And maybe some misunderstanding about laws.

 

I'll agree that Hozer's unauthorized carts are most likely illegal, & that he'd need permission from both the original publisher & whoever modified a game to legally create a copy of a hack. I'm just not sure where the ethics begin & end on this. If he sells hacks in his store without the creator's permission I'd agree that it's immoral; if he stores unreleased ROMs & sells them, I'd agree that it's immoral. But to create a cart for a fee from a provided ROM? Someone could do that themselves, if they had the skill. To ask someone with the skills to do so & to pay them for parts & labor when the ROM is freely available? It's too fine a line. If the ROM came with a doc limiting the license to emulator use or something I could understand the problem, but in that case I'd blame the person who obtained the ROM, not the person who made the cart.

 

But it seems like Hozer makes dozens of carts at a time for people who then resell them. He should no better than that. Even if he can't know where a ROM comes from he should be able to blacklist folks who've asked for illegal copies. But he claims to have done this since the mid-80's; either there are a ton of lost early homebrews, or Hozer's a pirate with out real ethics.

 

Honestly, I thought Hozer was sued out of existence years ago by Namco or The Tetris Company.

[TPR]

I'd blame the person who obtained the ROM, not the person who made the cart.

 

I'm having difficulty understanding why anyone would think this way, other than here we are again confusing feelings with facts.

 

FACT: If someone is charging money to create an item for someone else, and neither of the parties, the person who requested the item to be made or the person who made the item, have the right to create that item or to sell that item, then they have both infringed on the original copyright owner.

[Albert]

I'll agree that Hozer's unauthorized carts are most likely illegal, & that he'd need permission from both the original publisher & whoever modified a game to legally create a copy of a hack. I'm just not sure where the ethics begin & end on this. If he sells hacks in his store without the creator's permission I'd agree that it's immoral; if he stores unreleased ROMs & sells them, I'd agree that it's immoral. But to create a cart for a fee from a provided ROM? Someone could do that themselves, if they had the skill. To ask someone with the skills to do so & to pay them for parts & labor when the ROM is freely available? It's too fine a line. If the ROM came with a doc limiting the license to emulator use or something I could understand the problem, but in that case I'd blame the person who obtained the ROM, not the person who made the cart.

 

Yeah, no. It's pretty clear, Hozer is making and selling physical copies of homebrew games and hacks without permission. As well as using artwork he does not have permission to use. It doesn't matter if he obtained the ROM images himself or someone sends them to him. The copyright owner can dictate how his or her copyrighted material is used. Go ask a printing company to print a copy of a book you sent them electronically. They will tell you to go pound sand unless you can prove copyright ownership or the copyright has expired and the work is now in the public domain.

 

As you said, someone can make a physical copy of a game themselves and that is not a problem. It's the selling of copies that is the problem.

 

..Al

[CPUWIZ]

Still going around in circles, I see.

[s0c7]

AFAIK I've never had one of my games bootlegged. However, I also usually put very specific copyright info in the text files that accompany my binaries (can't sell in any way, shape or form without permission), and that is because I've seen what has happened to others. And yes, there does seem to be one specific source most of it is coming from. I'm all for people having access to the binaries so they can play via emulation, try before they buy, or even if they really like it not everyone is able to drop $45 on a new game. Still, I would be very PO'd to see them pop up somewhere in bootleg form. AA offers a very reasonable custom cart service.

[Mr SQL]

Hey Thomas, how's that TARDIS treating you?

 

Reply #3:

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 1.36.13 PM.png

 

 

Reply #13

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 1.37.15 PM.png

 

Quit following me around posting ignore pics, you did that on the Retron77 thread too and do it constantly; it's boring not ignoring.

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 2.26.14 PM.png

 

I can't figure out why the Atari Jerks also pick on kids (what the kid called them) and then demand children identify themselves in their Avatars but it sounds more like the pedo than the dodo.

What are your thoughts on what type of bird? (PM me if you want to discuss the thread topic).

[TPR]

I can't figure out why the Atari Jerks also pick on kids (what the kid called them) and then demand children identify themselves in their Avatars but it sounds more like the pedo than the dodo.

 

[+Muddyfunster]

Still going around in circles, I see.

 

Indeed but to a relative newcomer like me, that was not aware of the questionable practices of certain parties, it was quite informative !

[Arenafoot]

I was curious as to what homebrew publishers are out there and what differences there are (pros and construction). I am familiar with a few (Atari Age, Hozer Games, Good Deal Games, Packrat) or some self publishers like Mr. Atari.

 

When I look for homebrew games I have several criteria I look for, such as label artwork, gameplay, quality, cost, and variety. I love having games from so many different people and sources and constantly wonder if I am missing something or if there are places to look out for, for things like poor build quality or dubious practices.

Reading through this thread I noticed one of my favorite publishers has not been mentioned yet.... Repentless Video Games. https://www.etsy.com/shop/REPENTLESS

Peter sells Scott Dayton (neotokeo2001) hacks on cartridges thru his etsy store with Scott's permission.

 

Another one that is coming back into the Atari homebrew scene is 8-Bit Classics https://www.8bitclassics.com/product-category/consoles/atari-2600/homebrew-games/

 

And in Brazil there's a group called More Work Games: http://morework.com.br/

 

All of these are listed on the "Websites" page of my books "The Atari 2600 Homebrew Companion" series.

[+SpiceWare]

He has a way of twisting things, such as accusing people of following him around when they were there first, hence my TARDIS comment with screen grabs - if Thomas was following then he must logically have a time machine in order to have commented first.

 

I got tired of dealing with his bs so put him on my ignore list. The way ignore works I still see comments of his if other people quote them. I believe the bit you quoted ties to this topic, though I don't know where the "demand children identify themselves in their Avatars" comes from.

• New user DementedPurple asked for help, I pointed them at my tutorial.
• I added an index to my tutorial to make it easier for them to find things
• DementedPurple crapped all over the tutorial "it is just a bunch of code without anything telling you what any of it actually does"
• I pointed out that the source code was predominantly comments telling you what the code does, so it was obvious they hadn't put forth any effort.
• They apologized and explained they couldn't find the sprite info
• I explained that moveable objects on the 2600 are called players, missiles, and ball, not sprites and that not knowing the correct terminology would hamper their efforts.
• I updated the index to make it even easier to find things and specifically added "Note: players are known as sprites in modern nomenclature"
• DementedPurple didn't come back, suspect that was due to reply #9(another user on my ignore list) so they didn't see my updates. They posted this on another forum

  I tried asking for help on AtariAge and those people were kind of jerks

• later in that discussion it's revealed they're 12 and autistic
• I noticed gauauu was active in that other forum so asked if he'd let DementedPurple know that I'd made some updates for them, which he did. Don't know if DementedPurple ever saw it.

I don't know how telling somebody they need to put forth some effort of their own, while also going out of your way to help them even more, could be twisted into "picking on a kid".

 

Ignored posts give you the option to "View it anyway?". On occasion I do to see if I can remove an ignored user from my list, which has occurred on occasion. I no longer do so for Mr SQL's posts, he's not worth the effort.

[+TwentySixHundred]

As someone who has thought of uploading numerous projects, it would give me the shits knowing someone would download my demo, WIP or finished product only to shell it in a cart to make money off it. Especially without atleast asking first. It's just morally wrong to steal someones product for your gain. As far as i know most that upload, do with the assumption and trust that others will download for personal use not as a commercial product.

 

Wondering if there is some sort of a legal disclaimer that Al could set up along the lines of "All homebrew, hacks and demo ROMs uploaded on the AA site are protected under copyright laws unless permission is granted by the author". Im no guru with legalities but just a thought.