Nintendo the lawyer

the legal faq about roms etc on nintendos site is 10/10

nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#roms

>How Come Nintendo Does Not Take Steps Towards Legitimizing Nintendo Emulators?

>Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.

>Isn't it Okay to Download Nintendo ROMs for Games that are No Longer Distributed in the Stores or Commercially Exploited? Aren't They Considered "Public Domain"?

>No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

>Nintendo isn't it true that you suck balls and are quickly driving yourself to be an irrelevant and insignificant force is a modern gaming market?

>yes. Purreese Undastann

>Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited
but they literally do

okay and?

Ok, so.
First: We don't how or what your reasoning is, it won't stop us or others from downloading emulators, roms, or sharing them p2p or in other ways.
Second: You're making jack and shit on most of those titles now.
Third: If you provided an avenue for legal purchase many would use it instead.

you refuse, and so you argue that what we do is 'wrong'. We don't care. Your argument is literally invalid.

Yeah fuck off Nintendo. You're irrelevant. I'll continue to pirate the games you did 20 years ago when you still made good games.

Yeah, except now it takes ages, and you would be dead by the time that happens.

No they don't. At all.

Why would you even think that?

to continue from You do realize if you offered the files for sale, as raw roms, console downloads, pc downloads, mobile apps to use with licenced mobile emulators..you wouldn't have to market anything, you wouldn't have to even say much. 5 minutes, one post on twitter, and your problem is by and large resolved. is your pride, your arrogance, as a company, too great to see that you're destroying yourself with your obstinance?

>>No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.
In Austria, only providing a copy would be copyright infringement. Just using or downloading a ROM would not violate copyright law, uploading it would be against the law.

>Third: If you provided an avenue for legal purchase many would use it instead.
>Nintendo Virtual Console

eh. they're not out there actively harrasing major rom sites so it's a big deal. this is just a public facing pr exercise.

>no speed up button
hng

They should then provide a better service then.
The current way they do VC is terrible, lacks options, color pallete in N64, NES and GBA (because of the original hardware) is complete fuck and the games come once every full moon when all the planets align.
Fucking Sega of all companies has more of a clue of what to do with roms than Nintendo.

>in Austria it's not illegal to infringe on copyright unless you give the copy to someone else

Are you sure that's right?

Basically this.
It also helps that there is a large amount of "this company got bankrupt, the IP may or may not be bought out, and there is no more sales of it or more IP"

There is a good chance the FAQ would not even survive a round in court, simply because it avoid stating what a ROM or, or what a emulator do.

OP is just telling us what we already know.

Just don't really care.

why would frequently asked questions hold up in court?

>are quickly driving yourself to be an irrelevant and insignificant force is a modern gaming market?

I've heard that from sonybois and microshills for the past twenty years

Its just like EULA's, they are not legally right in anything.
If the reasoning, and reference was there, and nothing was left out of sight, a FAQ could be taken for good fish.
Instead its like EULA's, its not a damn shit, nor should it ever be read.

FAQ just means Frequently Asked Questions.
Of course it's not a legal document, it's not even something you sign. It's just them covering a series of commonly asked questions.

Did you have a brain fart or something?

>anonymous Sup Forums shows how fucking retarded they are again

ROMS are LEGAL if and only if you provide your own back up. Downloading someone else's back up is illegal.

Emulators are 100% legal. But BIOS distribution is NOT as they are copyrighted works.

A copyright is NOT a tradark NOR a patent.


BUT WHO GIVES A SHIT?

>there is no more sales of it

This is not a defense for copyright infringement.

I don't think you people understand just how powerful copyright is. It's not like patents or trademarks; it usually lasts for at least 50 years minimum and you do not need to defend it to keep it nor do you need to provide a way for the public to access the work to keep it.

You could literally lock it up in a vault somewhere and so "No one is allowed to touch this for 50 years" and that is perfectly fine as far as copyright law is concerned.

So? That's basically copyright 101. Sure it sucks, but that's how it works.

>FAQ just means Frequently Asked Questions.
FAQ rarely is FAQ.
Most of the times its "things we don't want to answer properly" or "things we think people want to know".
I still have nightmare over some of the electronic devices FAQ's in their manual, or Microsofts general FAQ's on anything

There are:
1. No more sales
2. No more distribution
3. Company that made IP is gone
4. Employes that made IP is gone
5. IP might actually be public domain due no bankruptcy buy out
6. IP is not being used
Bonus point: 1985 was 31 years ago. Copyright only lasts about 10-15 years if maintained

>A company doesn't want you illegally downloading their games

wtf I hate nintendo now

>you're irrelevant
>lowkey still play yo games though senpai

>FAQ rarely is FAQ

People who say otherwise are moralfags trying to justify themselves. Others don't really need to justify themselves. I pirated everything I ever played save for my N64 games back in the day because I couldn't do so.

>FAQ rarely is FAQ.
What in the literal fuck are you trying to get at?

Are you just confusing it with ToS or something?

>tfw there's a scumbag nintendrone on the internet posting as a retired NoA employee doing shut downs on certain fan projects and porn
you guys are really pathetic

not even sony fanboys or any fag sucking gabe's cock would bother to do this for their corporate god.

>>Copyright only lasts about 10-15 years if maintained
You poor fucking pleb. Copyright's last up to 90 years and then some thanks to Disney lobbying.

NINETY. YEARS.

Company is bankrupt? Who owns the IP? The creator of the software. As in, some nameless Joe who programmed the fucker. If you were to start distributing said software from dead company and nameless Joe shows up with source code the you're fucked.

I know you guys wish this system was some nice happy meal fantasy, but lobbyists have fucked it over for the common man to have any public domain rights.

>1. No more sales

Irrelevant.

>2. No more distribution

Irrelevant.

>3. Company that made IP is gone
>4. Employes that made IP is gone
>5. IP might actually be public domain due no bankruptcy buy out

This is what is called an orphaned work. Technically it's still covered by copyright but it's irrelevant anyway because you and I know it doesn't apply to 90% of ROMS.

>6. IP is not being used

Irrelevant.

>Bonus point: 1985 was 31 years ago. Copyright only lasts about 10-15 years if maintained

This is just wrong. Copyright period ranges from 25 years to over 100, depending on the country and period of creation. The only "maintenance" that was ever required was registration which only needed to be done once. Nowadays copyright is automatic and requires no registration.

FAQ is most often "things we want to declare"
I.E This product is better than other products, without explaining why
Wrong usage patterns, or right usage patterns without explaining how to do them
Etc

Occasionally you open a manual, and there is a FAQ, and it answers all your Frequently Answered Questions.
I.E Maintenance?
How to install and use?
What can be fucked up if done wrong?
Is there anything inside that you need a certified electrician to fix?
Warranty under current country/state law? And its limitations?
Do this software support gamepads, and if yes: What sort of gamepads?

Nintendo is just explaining copyright law and why certain activities related to emulation are illegal. It is not intended to be a legal document, but it does describe the way copyright law actually does work and Nintendo's stance on distributing ROMs.
In case you need it explained in the most simple way possible:
Emulation is legal. Downloading someone else's BIOS or ROM is illegal. Distrubuting someone else's or your own BIOS or ROM is illegal.
The only way you can 100% legally emulate games is if you make a copy of a game you already own in a legitimate way, and if need be, make a copy of a BIOS you already own in a legitimate way.

Copy right law maintains that a copyrighted work is copyrighted for either 95 years, or the life of the creator plus 70 years, depending on when it was released.

They should just make it mandatory for the copyright to be actually used commercially. If not for an extended period of time after the original 10-15 years, then they lose it.

Something like Disney would still keep their shit, since they constantly pump out merchandise and you can't really fault them for selling bajillion stickers/pencils/clothes/plushies/etc of all their damn shit even if their cartoons won't get sequels or whatever. They damn sure don't leave most of their stuff sitting around, there's fucking Disneyland/World/etc for all that.

But something like Nintendo hoarding shit and having them collect shelf dust is rather extreme. It'd be one thing if they also did the merchandise deal, or hired actors to fucking dress up as NES/SNES old school characters and danced in a Nintendo amusement park, ya know whatever, but they don't.

Still not sure why you think it has any application to a legal dispute, especially since they can easily pull up ACTUAL legal documents when they need to.

>and why certain activities related to emulation are illegal.
But they are not.
There is no real precedent in US court system, and inside EU court its a gigantic gray area nobody cares about.

>>Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.
What part of "not open to debate" you don't understand?

As I explained, downloading and/or distributing ROMs and/or BIOS's is illegal, but emulation itself is perfectly legal.

You can't illegally copy a ROM.
To even copy a ROM, you need a legitimate copy to start the process.
For illegal roms to exists, the box copy needs to be stolen.
So by mere demonstration, unless one can prove a illegal copy exists, the well isn't poisoned from the get go, and there is nothing illegal.

Bait or retard?

>You can't illegally copy a ROM.
Yes you can. The same way photocopying a book is illegal.
Unless Nintendo gave you a legally endorsed way to copy such game for all-use, then it was illegal.

Not that guy, but you can copy your own legal copy of a game if you don't distribute it.

>The same way photocopying a book is illegal.
Thats how books are scanned for redistribution if the original files to distribute are lost.
And how home video is distributed.
How satellite TV works
And how most works are distributed for translation

>emulation itself is perfectly legal

This is actually up in the air at the moment.

Oracle and Google are in the middle of a legal battle over something that is pertinent to this, namely over whether or not Google's re-implementation of the Java API is copyright infringement. Initially Google won but Oracle appealed and the decision was reverse. There was a second trial and Google won it again but again Oracle are planning to appeal.

If Oracle wins that means emulation is copyright infringement too.

>>there is no more sales of it
>This is not a defense for copyright infringement.

Pretty sure it is though.
The argument about copyright is that you prevent them from making sales by providing the product for free. That is why you get fucked if you're caught torrenting (because you upload as well as download), but one-click-hosters are relatively safe. The argument being, by uploading, you cause them monetary damage because the persons who downloaded it from you would have bought it otherwise (which is a shit argument to begin with, but that's how it works).
So if there is no legal way to buy it, you don't do any monetary damage to them, because nobody could have paid them for it anyway.
At least that's how I would argue and I'd like to hear their retarded argument against my logic.

>I'd like to hear their retarded argument against my logic

Easy as shit.

All they would have to say is they have been thinking of a re-issue, or utilizing the work in future material, or exploring licensing possibilities, etc., etc.

That someone is not making money from it at the moment does not mean it's automatic fair use.

The system of Law doesn't give a fuck if you proved that the way you broke the law didn't actually hurt anyone and was completely ethical. If there is a written law, or a standing precedent, and you broke it, you are liable to get sued or otherwise punished for doing so. The reason why a law exists does not matter when it comes to enforcing that law.
Besides, Nintendo's retort to the idea that downloading a game that is no longer in print or available to purchase isn't harmful, as per written on their site, is as follows:

>"Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets."

Basically by having their IP's and assets available to practically everyone for free, it diminishes the value of owning said IP's and assets, and thus also the company that owns them. They also make the case that they may at some point bring any game or character back in a new product, and having an earlier version available for free makes it a much less desirable product. Their case is much more likely to win in the court of law against your case of "b-but mister, I wasn't hurting nobody!".

There is a big difference here. Google is using the code Oracle is suing them over from a commercial standpoint. They are making a profit with it.

Emu dev groups, like, say, the one that does zSNES doesn't necessarily make a profit with their emulator. They accept donations, yes, but they don't seek to make a profit with their software.

Emulators that are sold for money, however, do come in under a VERY dark grey area. Because these devs are seeking to make money/profit by emulating the way a copyrighted system works. It could be likened to selling knock off products from China, meant to emulate/look like/act like more popular, branded, items. And we already have precedent for this with all the fake handbag scammers out there. If a case for this were to establish a precedent either way, it could vastly affect the market.

>however, do come in under a VERY dark grey area.
Not really. At best they are competing dev kits.
At worst they are... something nobody cares about.