Dumping ROMs without consent of machine owner

[+x=usr(1536)]

"Data Custodian"

 

LOL

 

Even "custodian" refers to lawful guardianship.

Feel free to laugh at the term; it only serves to demonstrate that you're unfamiliar with legally-accepted terminology used to identify a person or persons who may have contact with data either with or without being the lawful possessors of said data. It's a term that I - and many, many others - have used in court, and is accepted in law as meaning essentially what I have defined it as here.

 

Prototype possessors have a legal claim to neither the physical medium nor the copyrighted code on it, and therefore have no legal or ethical standing to prevent someone else from dumping it when the opportunity arises, regardless of his "wishes." If he did, he could bring a legal suit. Please, be my guest.

Where did you ever get the impression that I said or implied that? Please go back and re-read what I've written; you seem to have added an interpretation of your own to my writing which, frankly, is completely outside the bounds of any points that I was making.

 

But, hey, I'll play along for a moment. How do you know that anyone in possession of a prototype isn't legally-entitled to have it? Not all prototypes were dumpster-dived, and many were given or sold to employees after testing and the decision to either go into production or not. Even ones that were tossed may have had the ownership of the physical item (note that I'm not including software or other IP in this; that's a whole other ball of wax) legally transferred to another party depending on the dumpster-diving laws of the locale in which they were scrounged - and those rights will pass to any other party that legally-acquires the same item down the line.

[Flojomojo]

... and peanut gallery behaviour that underpin the Akka Arrh situation.

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

 

 

Yep, and the irony's not lost on me here.

[Gentlegamer]

Feel free to laugh at the term; it only serves to demonstrate that you're unfamiliar with legally-accepted terminology used to identify a person or persons who may have contact with data either with or without being the lawful possessors of said data.

 

Cool, the dumpers are also custodians under these terms, so there's no issue.

[+x=usr(1536)]

 

Cool, the dumpers are also custodians under these terms, so there's no issue.

 

Nice try. Unfortunately, you're still reading something into what I've said that simply wasn't there.

 

Feel free to continue this conversation with someone else; I really see no point in carrying it on with you at this point.

[Swami]

 

Bingo!

 

I'm going to reiterate the points I made earlier in this thread, because they seem to routinely be ignored...

I think that's because there is no reason people can't believe he is a Gollum and tell him so despite his rights. Although, I think it is kind of a first world problem for both the possesor and the disenters.

[+GoldenWheels]

I think that's because there is no reason people can't believe he is a Gollum and tell him so despite his rights. Although, I think it is kind of a first world problem for both the possesor and the disenters.

 

I say, tell Gollum he's being greedy. I just don't think people touching shit without other's permission are the Frodos and Bilbos they seem to think they are.

[Swami]

 

I say, tell Gollum he's being greedy. I just don't think people touching shit without other's permission are the Frodos and Bilbos they seem to think they are.

I was being specific to his point. On your point, I would tend to agree. I would say that is more of a "ROM-Robin Hood/Napster" vs "Don't touch my shit" argument. I wouldn't want to be a Gollum, but I wouldn't want people rifling through my stuff.

[Gentlegamer]

How do I change my username to ROM Custodian

[Flojomojo]

How do I change my username to ROM Custodian

It's easy and fun! Subscribe now!

 

Seriously, do it soon, or I will steal your idea and do it myself.

[Swami]

They call me the Custodian of Love

[bojay1997]

I'm always fascinated by the sheer entitlement on display every time a situation like this pops up. There also seems to be a willful conflagration of playing on the fear many collectors have about data being lost forever with an argument that such preservation must also include access for everyone. The reality is that there are many wealthy video game collectors and that was true 20 years ago and it's true today. I've certainly met my share of them and I know a number of them that own one of a kind items, including games that will never be released to the public. I also know that for the most part they understand the necessity of preservation and they have taken steps to dump or otherwise back up what they own. My personal belief is that none of us have a right to demand that someone else freely release something they paid a substantial amount of money to obtain, whether or not they are the lawful copyright holder. As others have pointed out, there are literally more games in existence than any of us could possibly enjoy in a single lifetime. The fact that a particular game that was never released may never be playable by the general public is just not the kind of thing that is worth engaging in unethical or potentially illegal activity to deprive the owner of the exclusivity they may have. If you have ever wondered why some collectors prefer to remain anonymous and why you will never get access to the unique items they own, some of the posts in this thread are a pretty good justification.

[Keatah]

If I don't see a game and/or can't play it for whatever reason, it might as well not exist. It certainly doesn't exist to me! And that's ok. I've got 100,000 other games to pick from. Most likely better and more to my liking. Besides, how these obscure games get out tend to be more interesting than the game itself.

 

For this particular game, a video of it was sufficient to satisfy me. I guess it's not quite my style or something. And that's ok too.

 

As far as data in EPROMS go, a properly programmed EPROM is good for around 200 years or more. Masked ROMS or standard PROMS, even longer. Modern Flash TLC, QLC, or S²LC. Not so much. Might even be as low as 3-5 years.

[mr_me]

 

Bingo!

 

I'm going to reiterate the points I made earlier in this thread, because they seem to routinely be ignored in favour of the 'ZOMG DUMP ALL THE THINGS AND GIMME THE ROMZ NO FU ONLY I GET TO PLAY LOLZ@U' oversimplifications that tend to be trotted out any time there's an Akka Arrh-type situation.

 

1) Someone who owns <insert machine / console / computer / media here> and chooses to not make copies of that data available to the public is entirely within their rights to do so. Don't like it? Fine; that's your prerogative. But that person is under no obligation to make copies available any more than someone who owns a Ferrari is obligated to hand over the keys to anyone who wants to drive it.

 

2) Nobody is entitled to receive copies of that data. Nobody. Just becuase you installed an emulator and have an interest in prototype or unreleased software doesn't mean that it's your divinely-bestowed right to have that data sitting on storage that you have access to against the wishes of the person who is the custodian of that data.

 

These are the two fundamental tenets that underpin the situation. We can go back and forth about how it's all theft, piracy, evil poopypants collectors hoarding games to inflate their value and e-peen while rubbing their hands together greedily and laughing at the thought of all the emulator users that they're depriving of the ability to play THEIR GAME, and come up with umpty-billion scenarios to justify either position's points of view.

 

Oh, and don't even try to trot out the data preservation angle as a justification. Yeah, data absolutely should be preserved, and there have been (and will continue to be) cases where data is lost, sometimes irretrievably. It truly sucks when that happens, and it's not something that I want to see take place. But, unlike Pokémon, data isn't something that we'll ever catch all of. In the case of Akka Arrh, if you truly, honestly believe that the data was never backed up prior to last week's release... There's a bridge I want to sell you.

 

The reality is that life is unfair, nobody's obligated to give you squat, and you're not entitled to receive it. The sooner you make peace with this, life will probably go a lot more smoothly for you.

If this story is true than it doesn't matter what the owner of the machine wants. The roms were copied, forwarded to the mame people, the machine was emulated. The rom files were shared with everyone. There are far more people happy about it than people who are upset.

[Gentlegamer]

[HoshiChiri]

If I took a classic car in for an oil change, I'd be pretty pissed if the shop took a mold of my dome light buckets so some kit car company can stick them to their fiberglass abomination.

As much as disliking the initial violation of my trust, I dislike that when something invariably goes wrong with the process, I'd never suspect what happened to break it, and nobody would dare fess up.

 

That said, if I tripped over a super rare game, I would look to get it dumped. I just want a say over the process, and who's hands I trust not to break my things. I'm glad this one seems to have worked out.

 

I think you've hit on the one legitimate concern owners of rare games can have with ROM dumping- fear of damage. You don't want to entrust your one of a kind chips to the dumper of some fly-by-night enthusiast who watched half a youtube video on the process, so they totally know what they're doing. By grabbing a ROM without permission, you rob the owner of being aware of who & what is being done to their game, which is less than ideal.

 

It's why I'm inclined to think this story is not as it seems- I would imagine otherwise, the guy would have been called out to warn other high-end collectors not to trust the fellow.

 

As far as the entitlement angle on our part- I think visibility is a big deal with preventing it (to as much of an extent as it can be). Simply put- just becuase the owner made a backup for themselves, doesn't mean it's safely stored. I have 3 copies of my digital photo collection (one set of prints, the files on my laptop, and a set of thumb drives). Thing is, I typically have all 3 in the same room. So, while I'm safe from everyday concerns like the dog eating the photo album or the computer dying- if something major happens, like a housefire? Goodbye photos.

 

Marble Man is a good example here- one of the owners did have it dumped, and gave it to the online archivists, but with the caveat that it wasn't released. And- more importantly- we know about it. We know the game's data is in the archives, safe from any catastrophe that may befall the physical media, and from stupid archiving on the part of the owner. Ironically, if the owner(s) of Akka Arrh had come forward, and stated in plain terms what they had done to preserve the game, this may have never happened. At the very least, they'd have a lot more support in this situation. As it is, the general public had to reason to believe the game data was safe. Pirates gonna pirate when they can get away with it- and a lot more people will let them get away with it when people aren't worried about gaming history disappearing becuase one douche got all stingy with a game.

[+x=usr(1536)]

If this story is true than it doesn't matter what the owner of the machine wants. The roms were copied, forwarded to the mame people, the machine was emulated. The rom files were shared with everyone. There are far more people happy about it than people who are upset.

 

Right, but my focus has nothing to do with whether or not everyone is happy or otherwise - we can reasonably infer that the owner of the machine is unhappy and the recipients of the images are happy. The cat's out of the bag at this point, so ultimately how anyone feels about it is irrelevant.

[negative1]

i find this post, from one of the techs that dumped the akka arrh roms from 4 years ago to be interesting:

https://forums.arcade-museum.com/showpost.php?p=3985704&postcount=164

 

p-man

 

I repair prototypes for collectors big and small, ROMs are backed up with the owners consent, and held for preservation purposes. Releasing the ROMs is up to the owner, and I have never, nor ever will break the trust of the customers that look to me to get their rare stuff running again. We all need a backup in case of failure, so there is no chance any of these very rare machines will ever have their rom data 'lost' because only a handful of machines exist - the rom code is spread out amongst a few people here and there so this will never happen, and is not a reason to release roms to mame as the *only* way to preserve them.

 

I heard about this situation earlier in the week through The Dumping Union (via an IRC link?) which i am an active member of, and i have had a few people ask me if i was the leak. Of course not. I did dump the AA roms back in 2015 when i fixed the board - and posted about the repair at the time - all with the consent and blessing of the owner. Unless i was hacked and someone found my rom stash, it wasn't me letting them out.

 

Right now this is one big rumour-mill. I've been in this hobby since '97 and i'm pretty well known for bespoke repairs, i have no need to stir the pot. MAME has had a LOT of good ROMs from me over the years made possible through my own research and collecting savvy, just check the MAME source for the years of work and (i don't know how many) unique games i've put in there. By far - i am not anti-emulation. But i also don't releases everything i have - for many varied and complex reasons. Part of collecting is about hunting down items, chasing up leads, working stuff out. There's a time for everything - and maybe one of the owners decided it was time to set the cat amongst the pigeons

 

 

Anyway - there's my two cents, I can't speak for anyone else snared in this little furore.

 

Andy (P-man)

__________________

later

-1

Edited April 30, 2019 by negative1

[+x=usr(1536)]

i find this post, from one of the techs that dumped the akka arrh roms from 4 years ago to be interesting:

https://forums.arcade-museum.com/showpost.php?p=3985704&postcount=164

 

Andy is what can be considered a 100% reliable source. His claims can be taken as completely valid, and he has contributed a significant number and type of ROMs to MAME over the years. His reputation is impeccable.

 

This is not to knock the backup that he made around 2015 by any means, but there was at least one other set that had been backed up by the late '90s / early 2000s, if not earlier. Those backups (note the plural) were not resting in one person's hands, or on one form of storage. The same can be said of the set that Andy dumped.

 

This is not a case where there was a risk of loss, at least not without a significantly-complex and statistically-unlikely chain of events taking place. The same can be said for other unreleased ROMs.

[Tanooki]

In some cases a prototype might be considered stolen goods. For example, if an employee takes a prototype cartridge home, it still belongs to his employer and then belongs to whoever bought those assets. I don't know if that's the case here.

 

Actually short of the legal original owner (or owner through line of legal transfer succession) all prototypes are in fact illegal and anyone peddling them not owning up to this, denying it, covering that fact up is just a crook, and those doing lame numbered releases or making up this or that to peddle them for profit are far worse as that goes beyond just illegal ownership into thievery and fraud even if it doesn't feel like it.

 

 

I wish Piko would pop into this thread and drop some sense into this as he's the only one I know of around who does in fact take months/years to track down original license owners or their current ones to buy them out or license for active new distribution. There would be no better person on this forum likely to get into the details since he does the foot work and pays for these things year in and out.

[Cynicaster]

I definitely think that copying ROMs from a cabinet without permission and distributing them on the internet is a violation of trust and a bit of a dick move.

 

On the other hand, there is a palpable schadenfreude component at play when I picture a collector elitist knob-end crying tears of disgust onto his melancholy man-boobs over the release of a rare game to the emulation community.

 

I will be downloading and playing this game with nary a shred of compunction, by the way.

 

PS - the "tech stealing the roms from cabinet" is a cool conspiracy theory that would make a great 20/20 episode, but is there a single person in the world who truly believes this is what happened? The story of a guy surreptitiously plucking and copying chips from a rare game on the spot without getting caught is hopelessly untenable on its face. It seems to be well-established that multiple back-up dumps of Akka Arrh have been in existence for years, so the release of one of those - either as a willful donation from an anonymous owner or as an act of espionage from somebody else - is the only scenario that passes the sniff test, IMO.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Cynicaster

[mr_me]

 

Actually short of the legal original owner (or owner through line of legal transfer succession) all prototypes are in fact illegal and anyone peddling them not owning up to this, denying it, covering that fact up is just a crook, and those doing lame numbered releases or making up this or that to peddle them for profit are far worse as that goes beyond just illegal ownership into thievery and fraud even if it doesn't feel like it.

 

 

I wish Piko would pop into this thread and drop some sense into this as he's the only one I know of around who does in fact take months/years to track down original license owners or their current ones to buy them out or license for active new distribution. There would be no better person on this forum likely to get into the details since he does the foot work and pays for these things year in and out.

The owner of the copyright and the owner of a copy are two different things. If you want to make more copies, like piko interactive, then yes permission from the copyright owner should be tracked down. A prototype machine has one copy of the software. The owner of the machine may sell it for whatever they want.

[Gentlegamer]

The owner of the copyright and the owner of a copy are two different things. If you want to make more copies, like piko interactive, then yes permission from the copyright owner should be tracked down. A prototype machine has one copy of the software. The owner of the machine may sell it for whatever they want.

 

Most prototypes (machines/physical medium) we are referring to are the property of the dev/publisher or their successor in interest. So just because some employee snuck it out the back door and sold it to Gollum doesn't mean Gollum has a legal property claim to it.

[mr_me]

 

Most prototypes (machines/physical medium) we are referring to are the property of the dev/publisher or their successor in interest. So just because some employee snuck it out the back door and sold it to Gollum doesn't mean Gollum has a legal property claim to it.

Yes, that scenario has been covered. If, for example, the prototype was bought in a manufacturer's bankruptcy auction lot and later resold; what's wrong with that. Edited April 30, 2019 by mr_me

[+GoldenWheels]

I guess I had assumed that when most prototypes were gotten rid of, it was at a point at which the companies considered them junk. That is..they were trashed/given away/forgotten about/downsized/whatever. That makes the most sense to me anyway.

 

I am sure there have been prototypes that WERE stolen/snuck out the back door. But it seems hard for me to believe that is the majority of the cases, or even a real common occurrence. Was there like a big proto theft at some point or something?

 

(Personally I believe I have something in my collection that has a "return to Atari Sunnyvale" sticker on it somewhere. Don't call the feds guys. I'll be sure to return it to Atari ASAP. They still own a tenth, I suppose)