If you're going to be doing changes to commercial games (e.g. romhacking), use an IPS patch (or similar binary patching methodology). Do not upload ROM images directly:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/ ... ere-suing/https://games.slashdot.org/story/18/07/ ... were-suing
Is it me or is Nintendo trying to generate bigger demand for retro consoles?
Would this be a new business model, since they're facing a huge competition on creating new and successful games?
Maybe they are thinking in repackage and sell "new old stuff", since it's easier than create new ones.
My post was not to debate or pontificate upon Nintendo's legal or marketing decisions.
It was meant to say: "folks who visit here: be aware of the rules on this site/sites. Failure to follow these rules can get the site/sites shut down. See example. Whether it's wrong or right doesn't matter."
Have people been posting ROMs here? Like, I've seen it happen once in a blue moon, but it always gets corrected quickly...?
I've posted a couple in the past, mostly pirate games dumps, but I quickly removed and posted an ips file instead.
Should I be worried?
It's just a reminder for people. I was hoping someone would pin the thread. There has already been discussion over "what are the rules now that we're not on Parodius Networking", and as such, reminding folks of at least a base rule (esp. considering Nintendo's recent actions) would seem wise.
The one thing I've been worried about in this respect is the NSF rips thread.
Yup, I'm concerned about the same thing. The NSF aspect may actually warrant the need to discuss with an actual IP/DMCA attorney. Tricky subject, I think, considering they're "partial" extractions (certainly containing original playerback code, sequenced data, and (if applicable) PCM samples)... but they're not "an entire ROM" in the literal sense.
Bare minimum: Nintendo seems to be going after stuff they themselves produced, so NSFs of official Nintendo titles might be worth pulling, if there are any.
Ha ha, that's a funny thought... because of the nature of that thread almost everything in it is very obscure. Most Nintendo brand NSFs got ripped a long time prior.
(There's definitely some Nintendo stuff in there, though.)
Even if there was zero code or music data from the actual game ROMs (e.g. it was all mp3 recordings), just the melodies themselves are someone's intellectual property and distributing them would probably already be condidered copyright infringement.
NSF rips are 100% a copyright infringement either way, I don't think there's much to argue about that.
The harder question is how much risk is involved in having them hosted on this forum, and to whom that risk belongs. It's been really weird to me that IP owners don't seem to police NSFs, VGM rips, etc. but as someone who enjoys and benefits from their presence I'm glad it's been this way.
My guess is that nsf is such an obscure format that it's never was on their radar (yet). If you talks about sharing a "rom" and mp3 or avi/mp4 (etc) then it will surely gets theirs attention but nsf/vgm? Not many people would know about that.
But yes, now that Nintendo (America branch only?) seems sensitive, this is worrisome, a little bit. Up to know I'm not aware of them sending legal actions for nsf files but hmmm...
Man I hate those things. It's not like distributing a game or something, you just want to listen to some game music.
Nintendo has in the past sold CD copies of the soundtrack of Super Mario 64 and other first-party games. So if we see the company publishing its back catalog's soundtracks en masse on Amazon Music, iTunes Store/Apple Music, and Google Play Music, then we get worried.
Why not just have a publically known onion for all NES/Famicom ROMs and NSFs without distinguishable ownership?
A reliable repository of commercial material is always necessary for accurate emulation and historic preservation.
The hash for the v2 or v3 onion can be changed time to time and simply advertised in someone's signature or in other subversive manners.
B00daW wrote:
Why not just have a publically known onion for all NES/Famicom ROMs and NSFs without distinguishable ownership?
I think this is the wrong place to even discuss trying to solve that problem. Somebody else that's into ROM preservation can tackle that. My understanding is that here we stay legal by avoiding it entirely.
gauauu wrote:
I think this is the wrong place to even discuss trying to solve that problem. Somebody else that's into ROM preservation can tackle that. My understanding is that here we stay legal by avoiding it entirely.
^^^ 100% correct.
The only thing that would be useful to confirm is the legality for screenshots, like the one that was used (but is now removed) for explaining scrolling. Using existing game screenshot to show a behavior is always useful and should hopefully be tolerated since so many site use them in other scenario but for now it's better to be careful until it can be confirmed.
Rom, same opinion here, it's not our responsibility since we are a community for development.
Sorry for the double post but I got my answer from Nintendo (I did send them a simple email on the subject to their legal department) and the answer is in the line with what Koitsu said:
- We are happy that you have interest in our assets
- We receive too many request to answer legal question about usage of them
so
- ask a lawyer
So... Unless we ask a lawyer for any particular use of Nintendo assets, it's better to be safe than sorry. I kind of knew it was going to be that kind of answer that I would receive but hey, it only cost me the time to ask the question in that case. So the legal section in the "contact us" is completely useless, it's just to look nice and that's it.
As usual, I'm not a lawyer, but once again this is in pretty comprehensible territory. Using video game screenshots as methods of explaining game mechanics, etc. has long been established as "fair use" without any kind of doubt. I'd say you have to go the route of something like Spriters Resource (ie. copyrighted material for the sake of the material itself, as well as pretty comprehensive rips) to reach an actual infringement scenario.
Meanwhile, hosting NSF files, full of copyrighted music - though never considered bad faith by anyone, including most original rights holders, that is technically completely illegal.
It's one of those situations where people just get away with it, because no one even cares, including the original musicians or even Nintendo. But since it's illegal, I'd say there's an obvious treshold here, which I am glad to see NesDev not wanting to cross.
For screenshots though, I still consider their removal excessively pedantic.