Dumping ROMs without consent of machine owner

[mr_me]

 

What does it matter how much I did or did not spend? Can we swap it for man-hours perhaps? It doesn't matter either way, it's still a lame strawman.

 

You can go into semantics about what is and what isn't preservation but in the end of the day it's completely irrelevant that something is "preserved" if nobody bar a handful can ever experience or see it. We live in digital age and one perk of it is is total accessibility. While a trip to Strong or other museum can be fun, and it's undeniably great that they exist and care for these collections, a modern museum should also put whatever is possible online (and in much better capacity than a poor slideshow that the Strong for example offers). And I'm sure they could be able to negotiate and convince the more stubborn collectors, if they wanted to.

 

The copyright argument in most of these cases is ridiculous, and a function of the skewed legal reality we live in. If you'd read that giantbomb article you'd see that huge chunk of this stuff is impossible to monetize. Even if it was, it could be granted personal use, non-commercial licenses or some such, just like it was in Infocom's case.

 

...

Generally museums respect copyright but there's one that asks for forgiveness rather than permission.

----------

 

On what basis do you make that rather absolute assertion? There's no guarantee that such a thing would happen.

 

...

See the part about onsite access to collections.

https://www.museumofplay.org/collections/access-collections

 

In this interview access for researchers is discussed at the library of congress.

https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2012/09/yes-the-library-of-congress-has-video-games-an-interview-with-david-gibson/

 

Now if I had a museum and someone offered a donation with restrictions I'd tell them to keep it.

Edited May 2, 2019 by mr_me

[+x=usr(1536)]

Generally museums respect copyright but there's one that asks for forgiveness rather than permission.

----------

 

See the part about onsite access to collections.

https://www.museumofplay.org/collections/access-collections

 

Now if I had a museum and someone offered a donation with restrictions I'd tell them to keep it.

 

That's interesting; I was unaware that the Strong Museum had such extensive research policies in place, and it's good to know that they are allowing fairly broad research access to their collections.

 

Reading through their policies, I do note that their Digital Game Files Access Policy states the following:

 

"Digital game files, including video game source code, are the intellectual property of the game’s creator and/or publisher (in cases of works for hire). The Strong is able to make digital game files within its holdings accessible to on-site researchers only, in a read-only capacity, unless prior permission is received from the holder of the intellectual property rights for the researcher to receive a digital copy. (Print-outs of source code within an archival collection are able to be scanned or photographed by on-site researchers for personal use only.)"

 

This plus statements in their other policies (and elsewhere) indicate to me that if they did have a prototype arcade game, they'd likely permit someone to come in and document the hardware, gameplay, artwork, etc. - but that without a letter from the current software rights holder, the relevant software would stay within their walls. Realistically, it's no different from that standpoint than if the software were residing in a cabinet in a private collection.

 

Note that I'm not mentioning this to knock them; I'm completely in favour of the access that they're permitting. But I can also understand why they can't allow the software contained within their collections to be distributed under the intent of preservation.

[bojay1997]

I don't agree that people are demanding everything be released or else. They want the data preserved. Hoarding video game history in secret is just sad. Something undumped/released really shouldn't be worth that much more. But it may be ONLY within the ultra small niche of people who collect rare items and then hide them away like mouse would cheese in your walls.

 

Sure they are. There are literally people here admitting to engaging in shady activities to trick someone into leaving their game alone long enough to have it dumped without their permission and others that are perfectly fine with someone coming into someone else's home and stealing from them. Leaving aside the value to the individual collector, there is clearly a substantial premium in the marketplace attached to unique items and software. I'm actually someone who has contributed financially to group buys of things like prototype arcade boards over the years so they could be dumped and released and the difference in value between a unique board that has been dumped and one that has not been dumped can be thousands of dollars. I frankly find it fascinating and distributing that the people who beat the drum hardest for preservation and public access are often the ones who refuse to put their money where their mouth is and have a narrow view of collectors as selfish hoarders who may not feel that they have an obligation to release something to the public that they have paid substantial amounts to own. The reality is a lot more subtle and nuanced.

[mr_me]

Then they'd have to copy the roms when the museum isn't looking. : )

 

Most museums just want to respect copyright laws. Reverse engineering is a case where you can make a copy without the copyright owner's permission. If they have a concern about copies being leaked to the public that's their call. This is probably all very hypothetical, these museums are unlikely to have such a videogame.

Edited May 2, 2019 by mr_me

[youxia]

Note that I'm not mentioning this to knock them; I'm completely in favour of the access that they're permitting. But I can also understand why they can't allow the software contained within their collections to be distributed under the intent of preservation.

 

I don't blame the museum itself either, but they could go that one step further and try to negotiate and persuade the copyright owners. I also did miss that link mr_me posted, I only saw some other, very limited ones. This 70K item online collection is much better, shame of course it has to be under Google's agenda. Nevertheless, sources and roms should be made available for download whenever possible.

 

Overall it's something I said on this forum before and will keep saying ad infinitum: the copyright on cultural media should have 20-30 year expiration date. That is really the crux of the whole matter.

[+x=usr(1536)]

I'm actually someone who has contributed financially to group buys of things like prototype arcade boards over the years so they could be dumped and released and the difference in value between a unique board that has been dumped and one that has not been dumped can be thousands of dollars. I frankly find it fascinating and distributing that the people who beat the drum hardest for preservation and public access are often the ones who refuse to put their money where their mouth is and have a narrow view of collectors as selfish hoarders who may not feel that they have an obligation to release something to the public that they have paid substantial amounts to own. The reality is a lot more subtle and nuanced.

 

Speaking as someone else who has also provided financial support to various acquisition and dumping efforts of rare and prototype arcade games over the span of a couple of decades, I am 110% in agreement with what bojay has written above.

 

These are not black-and-white situations, folks. When he says that there are subtleties and nuances to how they can unfold (and consequently have to be handled), this is absolute truth. And yes, those screaming the loudest about "NEED PROTO ROMZ NAO!!!1!" are typically the ones furthest away from reaching for their wallets and / or investing the effort required to obtain some of these titles.

[youxia]

 

Leaving aside the value to the individual collector, there is clearly a substantial premium in the marketplace attached to unique items and software. I'm actually someone who has contributed financially to group buys of things like prototype arcade boards over the years so they could be dumped and released and the difference in value between a unique board that has been dumped and one that has not been dumped can be thousands of dollars. I frankly find it fascinating and distributing that the people who beat the drum hardest for preservation and public access are often the ones who refuse to put their money where their mouth is and have a narrow view of collectors as selfish hoarders who may not feel that they have an obligation to release something to the public that they have paid substantial amounts to own. The reality is a lot more subtle and nuanced.

 

The premium you talk about is the function of the sick Gollum mindset and the artificial self-inflating bubble these people create themselves. So, no, I don't have any sympathy for their hardship when something gets leaked. If they look at this stuff as an "investment" then they are in the wrong hobby to start with.

 

Sure, I do have much respect for those (you included) with means to buy-and-dump whatever is possible, but please don't use it as an argument here. Not everybody has the monetary resources to donate to such causes, it's not like they're well publicised and above all it has nothing to do with the reason why you need to pay so much in the first place.

[+x=usr(1536)]

I don't blame the museum itself either, but they could go that one step further and try to negotiate and persuade the copyright owners.

From the standpoint of seeing the software distributed, I understand why you're saying this. But I can imagine the copyright holders' response, and it would involve either significant payments to them, restrictive licensing terms, DRM, or any other number of methods of control over their IP. Also, what happens in cases where there is no clear copyright holder? You can't negotiate with someone you can't contact.

 

Realistically, I don't see this as being any different to games remaining in private collections. If they can't meet the copyright holders' terms due to financial or other considerations (and, again being realistic, they need to keep as much funding as possible directed into the Museum's operations) and / or there is no clear copyright holder to negotiate with, then nothing really changes.

 

Overall it's something I said on this forum before and will keep saying ad infinitum: the copyright on cultural media should have 20-30 year expiration date. That is really the crux of the whole matter.

 

Speaking as someone who has living relatives receiving royalties as copyright holders on works they created which are older than the timespan you are proposing, I thoroughly disagree. If such a limit had been in place, I can truthfully assure you that there would have been times where the family wouldn't have eaten or had a heated house in the Winter because no compensation for the residual sales of their works would have been forthcoming.

[Swami]

Then they'd have to copy the roms when the museum isn't looking. : )

 

Most museums just want to respect copyright laws. Reverse engineering is a case where you can make a copy without the copyright owner's permission. If they have a concern about copies being leaked to the public that's their call. This is probably all very hypothetical, these museums are unlikely to have such a videogame.

 

There is that crazy case of the Tutorvision roms that are being held in some museum waiting on permission from World Book, who say they have no knowledge of owning the rights to the game. I'm trying to figure out how those ever get released. Oddly, Tommy Tallarico suggested he could release them as a CD or with the Amico...

[youxia]

From the standpoint of seeing the software distributed, I understand why you're saying this. But I can imagine the copyright holders' response, and it would involve either significant payments to them, restrictive licensing terms, DRM, or any other number of methods of control over their IP. Also, what happens in cases where there is no clear copyright holder? You can't negotiate with someone you can't contact.

 

This is not one size fits all issue, of course, but in some (most?) of these cases it's copyright holders who donate. And these IPs are either already worthless from monetary point of view (I doubt anybody wants to make big bucks on that Tank source code or some videos from an ancient Atari warehouse) or could be put into non-commercial, personal licenses as I've already said. As we all know 95% of stuff is already out in the wild, freely accessible, and yet it does not stop GOG, Nintendo, Atari or whoever else woke up to the retro-profiting angle from making money. In fact it fuels it, I'd say, and enabled them to do so in first place.

 

 

Speaking as someone who has living relatives receiving royalties as copyright holders on works they created which are older than the timespan you are proposing, I thoroughly disagree. If such a limit had been in place, I can truthfully assure you that there would have been times where the family wouldn't have eaten or had a heated house in the Winter because no compensation for the residual sales of their works would have been forthcoming.

 

 

Well, it's hard to argue with such a heratfelt personal anecdote Though you probably do realize that it seems like an extreme example. And the fact remains that 100 years ago the limit was 42 years (with extensions) not 170 as it is now, so it can be done and it would definitely make this world a better place. Or maybe it can't thanks to the uber-powerful lobbies profiting from it. But I can agree that this is a much broader subject, perhaps for another thread, and one that actually is complex, subtle and nuanced - contrary to the original selfish-hoarding issue, which is anything but.

[HoshiChiri]

 

This plus statements in their other policies (and elsewhere) indicate to me that if they did have a prototype arcade game, they'd likely permit someone to come in and document the hardware, gameplay, artwork, etc. - but that without a letter from the current software rights holder, the relevant software would stay within their walls. Realistically, it's no different from that standpoint than if the software were residing in a cabinet in a private collection.

 

 

I disagree- a private individual doesn't have public hours where literally anyone can come in to look over their rare thing. It's also difficult to impossible for the public to know the conditions the rare thing is being kept in, and what (if any) measures are taken to preserve or back up the rare thing.

 

This is where that communication bit comes in- someone who says "Look! I have a rare thing but I won't share it!" is going to look bad to the public, regardless of how he's actually handling it, becuase we don't know how he's handling it. Someone who says "Look! I have a rare thing! I don't want everyone to have it, but these 3 museums have copies, so if you ask them you can at least see it" will come off far more reasonably. They'll always be someone mad that everything isn't free for everyone always, but most people will be happy that the rare thing is knowably preserved, and accessible to those willing to make the effort.

Edited May 2, 2019 by HoshiChiri

[John Stamos Mullet]

Defending the rights of original copyright holders/owners is NOT the same thing as defending the (lack of) rights of latter day possessors of rare products like this.

 

If you have a provable claim to the intrinsic value contained it the creation of course or design of these products - you own the right to enforce those copyrights to whatever capacity the law allows.

 

If you're just some wealthy obsessive who plunked down bananas money to own the sole remaining physical copy of something you had no hand in creating, and no claim of legal chain of ownership - yeah - you have no rights, I don't give a flying fuck about your ROMs getting dumped.

[+x=usr(1536)]

I disagree- a private individual doesn't have public hours where literally anyone can come in to look over their rare thing. It's also difficult to impossible for the public to know the conditions the rare thing is being kept in, and what (if any) measures are taken to preserve or back up the rare thing.

Right, but the museum isn't obliged to permit access to its collections, and not all collections are on display or accessible to the public.

 

The public also does not have a right to know anything about items kept in private collections. They're private. By definition, that makes them nobody else's business. It might be unpleasant to have to hear that, but that is the reality of it.

[Flojomojo]

[mr_me]

Defending the rights of original copyright holders/owners is NOT the same thing as defending the (lack of) rights of latter day possessors of rare products like this.

 

If you have a provable claim to the intrinsic value contained it the creation of course or design of these products - you own the right to enforce those copyrights to whatever capacity the law allows.

 

If you're just some wealthy obsessive who plunked down bananas money to own the sole remaining physical copy of something you had no hand in creating, and no claim of legal chain of ownership - yeah - you have no rights, I don't give a flying fuck about your ROMs getting dumped.

There is some truth to the saying "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules".

 

----------

Regarding Museums, according to the library and archives section of US copyright law the following is one of the conditions to qualify.

 

(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and

[John Stamos Mullet]

Right, but the museum isn't obliged to permit access to its collections, and not all collections are on display or accessible to the public.

 

The public also does not have a right to know anything about items kept in private collections. They're private. By definition, that makes them nobody else's business. It might be unpleasant to have to hear that, but that is the reality of it.

A Museum that does not permit access to it's collections is, by definition, NOT a museum. It is a de facto private collection. (and it's a really shitty musuem, to boot)

 

If the museum is at least partially publicly funded, or benefits from tax exempt status by filing as a not for profit entity, they absolutely are obliged to share their collections with the public as they are benefitting from the public trust.

[bojay1997]

A Museum that does not permit access to it's collections is, by definition, NOT a museum. It is a de facto private collection. (and it's a really shitty musuem, to boot)

 

If the museum is at least partially publicly funded, or benefits from tax exempt status by filing as a not for profit entity, they absolutely are obliged to share their collections with the public as they are benefitting from the public trust.

Not correct. To apply for and obtain non-profit status in the United States, the organization must show that they have a public rather than private purpose, but there is no requirement that such a non-profit permit unrestricted access to its archives or collections. Specific grants or funding may come with additional strings attached, but many museums are primarily individual donor and private foundation funded at this point and on average, government financial support of museums is less than 25% of their typical annual budget.

[Flojomojo]

1. Dude with a bunch of arcade games does not meet the legal definition of a museum.

 

2. Private collectors can do what they want with their arcade cabinets, but they don't own the intellectual property of the copyrighted material in software, or the right to reproduce it. Acting like a game-hoarding dick is not illegal, but it's offensive to "the community."

 

3. ROM collectors are not legally justified in distributing old works, and the shambling corpse wearing the skin of "Atari" could very well try to bring a legal complaint against someone who tries to profit from this old game without cutting them in. To do so would be obnoxious, but not out of character.

 

4. The "preservation" or "loss" of this game, on its own, is almost insignificant. It's not particularly interesting, or notable. If all of classic gaming were an archeological dig, it would be yet another potsherd.

 

5. The unique cabinet is worthy of preservation, if the owner chooses to look after the storage environment, decay of electronic components, upkeep of obsolete parts. This is separate from the ROM itself. We have collections of old books whose text is in the public domain and digitized in Project Gutenberg.

 

6. The poor horse.

[John Stamos Mullet]

Not correct. To apply for and obtain non-profit status in the United States, the organization must show that they have a public rather than private purpose, but there is no requirement that such a non-profit permit unrestricted access to its archives or collections. Specific grants or funding may come with additional strings attached, but many museums are primarily individual donor and private foundation funded at this point and on average, government financial support of museums is less than 25% of their typical annual budget.

Nobody said anything about "unrestricted access". No museum, not the Met, or the Louvre, or the Guggenheim, etc. permit the public "unrestricted access". Items on display are viewable by the public, with obvious restriction to protect the safety of the items.

 

There is a vast chasm of difference between "unrestricted access" and "no access at all of any kind." If you promote yourself as a museum and then don't display anything for viewing to the public, you're not a museum.

 

You're playing a semantic word game. Stop it.

[bojay1997]

Nobody said anything about "unrestricted access". No museum, not the Met, or the Louvre, or the Guggenheim, etc. permit the public "unrestricted access". Items on display are viewable by the public, with obvious restriction to protect the safety of the items.

 

There is a vast chasm of difference between "unrestricted access" and "no access at all of any kind." If you promote yourself as a museum and then don't display anything for viewing to the public, you're not a museum.

 

You're playing a semantic word game. Stop it.

 

Nobody said anything about "unrestricted access". No museum, not the Met, or the Louvre, or the Guggenheim, etc. permit the public "unrestricted access". Items on display are viewable by the public, with obvious restriction to protect the safety of the items.

 

There is a vast chasm of difference between "unrestricted access" and "no access at all of any kind." If you promote yourself as a museum and then don't display anything for viewing to the public, you're not a museum.

 

You're playing a semantic word game. Stop it.

I think you're getting confused by the other circular arguments in the thread. Nobody is arguing that some guy's private collection is a museum. The discussion was about the fact that a museum doesn't necessarily allow public or scholarly access to all of its holdings or collections nor will most museums allow duplication of materials under copyright. It just shows the absurdity of claiming that this is all about the need for preservation when the reality is that a lot of people in this thread really only care about public access, even if that means utilizing methods that are morally or ethically wrong to obtain that access.

[RevEng]

I liked this thread better when it was about topless wives.

[Flojomojo]

I liked this thread better when it was about topless wives.

[HoshiChiri]

 

I think you're getting confused by the other circular arguments in the thread. Nobody is arguing that some guy's private collection is a museum. The discussion was about the fact that a museum doesn't necessarily allow public or scholarly access to all of its holdings or collections nor will most museums allow duplication of materials under copyright.

 

No, BUT- a museum by nature is assumed to be a master of preserving its relics, and most often makes said relics & storage techniques publicly available (if for no other reason than to promote interest & gain more donations.) Furthermore, most museums DO allow access by request to the entirety of their collection (as per the legal definition Flo brought up.)

 

Therefore, a ROM known to be kept by a museum or two is one less people will be concerned about being publicly dumped, as its 'preserved' status is a known positive. A game, ROM or otherwise, in the hand of one random gamer who hasn't made their preservation plans clear will stir far more trepidation. We've all known at least one so-called collector who was more likely to destroy a game in their possession than anything else.

 

Basically, what I'm getting at is: if you've got a one-of-a-kind game, tell people what you've done to preserve it. Lest the armchair vigilantes of the world decide they need to 'save' it & mess with your stuff.

[+x=usr(1536)]

[bojay1997]

 

No, BUT- a museum by nature is assumed to be a master of preserving its relics, and most often makes said relics & storage techniques publicly available (if for no other reason than to promote interest & gain more donations.) Furthermore, most museums DO allow access by request to the entirety of their collection (as per the legal definition Flo brought up.)

 

Therefore, a ROM known to be kept by a museum or two is one less people will be concerned about being publicly dumped, as its 'preserved' status is a known positive. A game, ROM or otherwise, in the hand of one random gamer who hasn't made their preservation plans clear will stir far more trepidation. We've all known at least one so-called collector who was more likely to destroy a game in their possession than anything else.

 

Basically, what I'm getting at is: if you've got a one-of-a-kind game, tell people what you've done to preserve it. Lest the armchair vigilantes of the world decide they need to 'save' it & mess with your stuff.

 

I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only one of the pro-dumping without permission people making this argument that if the owner would just make it clear that something is safely archived that everyone would leave them alone. I know for a fact that's not the case as I knew a collector for many years who was big in the NES prototype scene and who always made it clear that everything he owned was backed up in multiple locations. Despite that, every time he popped up on various forums, he was mercilessly harassed by people demanding that he make what he had paid thousands of dollars to obtain publicly available. On a number of occasions, he even offered to dump the carts for reimbursement of what he paid and people became even more aggressive. Nowadays he is pretty far underground and I haven't seen him on any of the forums at all. I'm willing to accept that you believe what you are posting, but your beliefs are clearly not shared by the rest of the mob.