To share an unreleased ROM or not to Share?

[mr_me]

If done properly, the IP would be sold with source code and compiled/assembled code in whatever format is convenient, especially when unfinished/unreleased games are involved.  Liquidation sales are rarely done properly.  Hardware and IP are often seperated.  IP of bankrupt companies sometimes go unsold.  Further, companies have been known not to maintain their legacy data.  And as these things get re-sold several times things get disconnected.

Edited October 10, 2019 by mr_me

[PikoInteractive]

1 hour ago, mr_me said:

If done properly, the IP would be sold with source code and compiled/assembled code in whatever format is convenient, especially when unfinished/unreleased games are involved.  Liquidation sales are rarely done properly.  Hardware and IP are often seperated.  IP of bankrupt companies sometimes go unsold.  Further, companies have been known not to maintain their legacy data.  And as these things get re-sold several times things get disconnected.

I guess you are very familiar with the situation and know all the things that normally happen. So what's the point of sharing my experience. Is not like we own 200 game IPs with many unreleased titles.

 

 

[mr_me]

I'm just saying that the onus is not on the collector to show their ownership of a prototype is legitimate; unless there's good reason to suspect otherwise.  Is that wrong?

[The Usotsuki]

4 hours ago, mr_me said:

I'm just saying that the onus is not on the collector to show their ownership of a prototype is legitimate; unless there's good reason to suspect otherwise.  Is that wrong?

If I understand correctly, actually, the onus is on the collector.

[mr_me]

1 hour ago, The Usotsuki said:

If I understand correctly, actually, the onus is on the collector.

Can you explain why that is?

[The Usotsuki]

Because the default is that the proto was probably fenced.

[mr_me]

24 minutes ago, The Usotsuki said:

Because the default is that the proto was probably fenced.

Can you explain what that means.

[The Usotsuki]

Stolen and then passed on to someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

 

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#United_States

Edited October 10, 2019 by The Usotsuki

[mr_me]

Yes, that's why I always said as long as it's not stolen goods.  But why is the assumption it's stolen, especially after assets have been sold, often to different parties.

[HoshiChiri]

2 hours ago, mr_me said:

Yes, that's why I always said as long as it's not stolen goods.  But why is the assumption it's stolen, especially after assets have been sold, often to different parties.

Are you sure it was sold? How do we not know someone snuck it out as the company was going under- meaning it was stolen?

 

Basically, if you want to be sure you're legally the owner of a prototype, you'll want the paperwork. It's doubly important becuase if the collector isn't buying the IP too, then they know there's someone else with a claim to that data who might show up one day wanting it.

 

The assumption of illegal ownership is pretty simple- unless the company does liquidate, they don't let protos go. They're more likely to be destroyed than given away. It's like animation cels- it's pretty well known the ones out there were mostly collected by trespassing dumpster divers rather can acquired above board. Unlike game protos, cels can't be a substitute for the animation, so there's no good reason for anyone to go after their fanbase over them.

 

I actually just thought of something that's relevant to this discussion- Astro Boy. The original 1960s Astro Boy was abandoned for years, until a couple guys bought the rights due to childhood nostalgia, using a shell company one friend bought wholesale telescopes with called 'The Right Stuff'. Anime fans will recognize that one, as they rearranged the spelling to become rightstuf.com. Anyway- after buying the rights, they got ahold of Tezuka productions over in Japan... and found out the English masters had been destroyed decades ago. They only way they'd get ahold of the show is broadcast reels- which, legally, had to be destroyed after airing ceased. Did they go around suing fans for their illegally kept video reels? No- they put out ads in fan circles asking to borrow said reels to copy for an official release. End result? After months of logistical nightmare keeping the mailings straight, they assembled the entire show- including an episode lost in Japanese. No lawyers. No fans hoarding up reels saying 'No! episode 14 is MINE and I won't let anyone else see it ever again!' Just a whole lotta fans, all over the world, working together to make sure everyone had access to a classic anime.

 

In my mind, this is how it should work. Apparently, though, there's plenty of game collectors who don't want games to be played- they want to keep their protos secret, lost to the world, never to be known or appreciated for reasons I do not understand. I guess we're assuming if you admit to having you'll immediately have a SWAT team at your door to take it away? Why do we even think that? I mean, aside from Piko, name a company who'd even care. And Piko's flat out said they don't want to get their lawyers involved- they'd rather just buy or borrow your proto to make a copy.

 

This is just one thing I'll never understand- games are meant to be played. If you have a game people can't play... why wouldn't you find a way for them to do so? Be it giving the game to a willing distributor who owns the IP, or releasing the ROM for a piece of abandonware? What could you possibly get from locking it away?

[mr_me]

In order to have a crime you have to have a victim.  As has been said, someone would have to claim they are the owner of the prototype in the collector's posession.

Edited October 11, 2019 by mr_me

[Tanooki]

The victim is the creator and owner of the property on that prototype board.  Prototypes are just not sold, they're made as test beds for games that may or may never make it to market in the end.  The only time something like that would be above board sold is when a company fails and someone buys the IP/project code and it would come on said board along with any relevant documentation (bill of sale, source code, art assets, audio, etc.)  The onus is damn near 100% on the hands of the holder of the prototype to prove the object wasn't as others said, fenced.  Ultimately though it does come down to whoever the owner is to go after the perp on this one, and stupidly (or not depending on your feelings) they rarely do.  Like hell Nintendo up until that bombshell release of NES Earthbound ever wanted that out there, especially fan translated of all things like 10+ years ago now?  And equally so they along with EA/Maxis surely wasn't too thrilled about SimCity popping up either this year.  Some people go after more active than dead properties which may be the case here, while others just twist the knife anyway even down to fan projects like the unofficial Chrono Trigger sequel Square-Enix nuked days before arrival.  Companies want and need to generally protect their assets and just don't allow them to float out there, someone would have had to walk off from in house, or a secondary location, with the files to do so and that's how these protos basically get out there in the wild.  So that's your victim there, the creator, whether they take an active care about it or not, they still got robbed unless they honestly sold off control, as is the case with Piko there.  Personally I'd love to see these companies start to take interest as how theyr'e often handled is just sleazy profiting off the theft of a theft.

[mr_me]

Yes, the victim is the owner of the prototype.  So if the current IP owner wants to use legal leverage to get it, they have to show they are the owner of the prototype not just the IP.  If the assets have been sold one or more times, it's no longer the creator.

[TheRedEye]

On 10/2/2019 at 2:36 PM, Jettgogaming said:

Here is where I disagree. Collectors are not bad people, and I sort of got angered by his comment that collectors are just hoarding games and not sharing them with the world. 

 

Hi it's me. In the context of the article, I was explaining how I felt in 2002, literally 17 years ago, and how I've changed my perspective over time. You can be angry at young me but this is not a blanket feeling I continue to have had after nearly two decades of growth.