Nintendo Sues Console ROM Sites for “Mass” Copyright Infringement

MickeyBailey said:
They do - they rerelease older games and the virtual console on their past systems were very popular. They have a vested financial interest in enforcing their copyrights.
Click to expand...

Right but not the whole library. Just what they feel like would earn them a profit.
 
MickeyBailey said:
First of all, copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil matter.

"A company that tries to protect it's assets is a scumbag company" :drowning:


They do - they rerelease older games and the virtual console on their past systems were very popular. They have a vested financial interest in enforcing their copyrights.

Maybe; I know I prefer to play the original Final Fantasy games over the 3D remakes taking away from potential revenue for partners.
Click to expand...

One thing people honestly refuse to acknowledge is that all of their (Nintendo) games and consoles are ALWAYS available on the open market. People just refuse to actually pay for buying a console and the original games that they desire. When their wanton piracy finally gets called out, for some reason it's the companies fault. I agree that any argument trying to validate piracy of games that are available on the market via second hand is baseless. You're just stealing. Internet made it easy, doesn't mean it gave you the rights to do it.

Those arguments are like saying you could send North Korea stolen thermonuclear build schematics digitally over the internet and that it's okay, because they couldn't find them elsewhere.
 
M76 said:
What red herring? A car's likeness is an IP. Are you against companies who build and sell classic cars or not?

I'm in favour of piracy of software that is not available to purchase commercially. Is that clear enough for you? The people who created these games are likely retired by now, so if anyone is leeching other people's work it is the corporations. Yes I'm against that law too which says that whatever intellectual product you create is owned by the company you work for, and not by you.

This is not about getting things without paying for it. This is about things that you can't get despite willing to pay for it. But feel free to continue revelling in your ad-hominems.
Click to expand...
No, he explained himself. He said pay for it or don't use it, it's that simple, then call me entitled for suggesting people use it when it's impossible for someone to pay for it. He called your car example a red herring because despite being practically the same thing, that's legal. Pirating games you can't buy is illegal, therefore it's wrong. His stance is legal = okay, illegal = bad. "It's that simple."
 
oldmanbal said:
One thing people honestly refuse to acknowledge is that all of their (Nintendo) games and consoles are ALWAYS available on the open market. People just refuse to actually pay for buying a console and the original games that they desire. When their wanton piracy finally gets called out, for some reason it's the companies fault. I agree that any argument trying to validate piracy of games that are available on the market via second hand is baseless. You're just stealing. Internet made it easy, doesn't mean it gave you the rights to do it.

Those arguments are like saying you could send North Korea stolen thermonuclear build schematics digitally over the internet and that it's okay, because they couldn't find them elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I admit I don't know as much about the Nintendo market, but on the PC and Commodore 64 market, there are very much a lot of games that are impossible to get by any legal means. So while it may not apply to Nintendo specifically, the concept still remains. Besides, flash forward 20 years, I imagine plenty of Nintendo games might not be so possible to obtain.

I think everyone here seems to agree that if the company is still selling the game, don't pirate it. The question seems to be why is it wrong when a game that's no longer being sold by the developer / rights holder is pirated?
 
scojer said:
Right but not the whole library. Just what they feel like would earn them a profit.
Click to expand...
Listen, I understand the frustration but it's their property. They're not going after end users, they're going after businesses profiting off trading their property.
 
MickeyBailey said:
Listen, I understand the frustration but it's their property. They're not going after end users, they're going after businesses profiting off trading their property.
Click to expand...

I'm not frustrated. I have a Wii with classic games purchased legally from the Wii shop and a Retron 5 with most of my childhood games my parents kept in a box, and some that I've found online/ebay or from game shops that sell cartridges.
So, I'm covered, but if Nintendo wants to go after a website that lists the entire library, they should offer their entire library.

just my $0.02
 
now they take action.

They see how popular their mini-nintendo is, and now they want to squash rom sites that have been around forever.
 
tetris42 said:
I admit I don't know as much about the Nintendo market, but on the PC and Commodore 64 market, there are very much a lot of games that are impossible to get by any legal means. So while it may not apply to Nintendo specifically, the concept still remains. Besides, flash forward 20 years, I imagine plenty of Nintendo games might not be so possible to obtain.

I think everyone here seems to agree that if the company is still selling the game, don't pirate it. The question seems to be why is it wrong when a game that's no longer being sold by the developer / rights holder is pirated?
Click to expand...

I've been playing roms since around 1996, and was always fully aware that it was illegal, immoral. Why anyone, for any reason, would think otherwise, is beyond my comprehension. I saw firsthand, as a dreamcast owner, how it can destroy a company virtually overnight. While it would be convenient for individuals that don't have the income to play all the games they would like to, it doesn't change the facts that you are essentially stealing. The ease of accessibility for emulators and roms has made it difficult to separate the legality from it. I'm honestly more surprised nintendo has gone after the rom sites they did, and not pursue the active attempts to emulate and pirate more current games like breath of the wild and other cemu enabled accessibility. Apple is happy to brick all devices that circumvent their tos, why isn't nintendo bricking more switches?

Going back to your comment that many nintendo games are not possible, probable to obtain, why do you feel like you have the right to own/play any of their back catalogue? That makes no sense. Just because it was once available, doesn't give you the right to ownership. You're making reasonable arguments, why doesn't that point make more sense to you? Just because you got away with a murder in 2001, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal at the time, or make it okay to do again.
 
oldmanbal said:
I've been playing roms since around 1996, and was always fully aware that it was illegal, immoral. Why anyone, for any reason, would think otherwise, is beyond my comprehension. I saw firsthand, as a dreamcast owner, how it can destroy a company virtually overnight. While it would be convenient for individuals that don't have the income to play all the games they would like to, it doesn't change the facts that you are essentially stealing. The ease of accessibility for emulators and roms has made it difficult to separate the legality from it. I'm honestly more surprised nintendo has gone after the rom sites they did, and not pursue the active attempts to emulate and pirate more current games like breath of the wild and other cemu enabled accessibility. Apple is happy to brick all devices that circumvent their tos, why isn't nintendo bricking more switches?

Going back to your comment that many nintendo games are not possible, probable to obtain, why do you feel like you have the right to own/play any of their back catalogue? That makes no sense. Just because it was once available, doesn't give you the right to ownership. You're making reasonable arguments, why doesn't that point make more sense to you? Just because you got away with a murder in 2001, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal at the time, or make it okay to do again.
Click to expand...
Well again, I agree with you on the first paragraph. Piracy can absolutely harm sales and I'm not advocating pirating when legit methods exist.

As for your second question, I guess it has to do with not wanting destruction of creative works and people of the present being able to experience works of the past? It's not about a "right" so much as being able to experience the works of history I generally see as a good thing. I mean if there was a book you wanted to read that was out of print and you couldn't buy a copy of, but a copy existed online that someone made a PDF of, why is it wrong to read that? To me the motivation is obvious, you want to read a book you're interested in that you can't buy. You say that makes no sense to you, to me it's innate. It's like asking why eat food when you're hungry.

To me, your question is equally bizarre. Have you ever seen an old movie, read an old book, heard an old song you enjoyed? If so, what if it had been impossible to buy a copy of that to experience it, does that make the world better somehow? That scenario is only a "crime" because corporations lobbied for it and decided it is. As a couple people pointed out, before Disney came along, some of this stuff would have entered public domain anyway. The law is usually a good indicator of what's right and wrong, but sometimes it isn't and needs to be revised. In your example, murder is easy to argue is wrong in almost all scenarios, regardless of what the law says. You're actively depriving someone of life, the harm is obvious. In pirating out-of-print titles, you're experiencing creative works of the past and the creators are literally losing no money, because they're not even selling it anymore to begin with. So it begs the question, why is that wrong?
 
tetris42 said:
Well again, I agree with you on the first paragraph. Piracy can absolutely harm sales and I'm not advocating pirating when legit methods exist.

As for your second question, I guess it has to do with not wanting destruction of creative works and people of the present being able to experience works of the past? It's not about a "right" so much as being able to experience the works of history I generally see as a good thing. I mean if there was a book you wanted to read that was out of print and you couldn't buy a copy of, but a copy existed online that someone made a PDF of, why is it wrong to read that? To me the motivation is obvious, you want to read a book you're interested in that you can't buy. You say that makes no sense to you, to me it's innate. It's like asking why eat food when you're hungry.

To me, your question is equally bizarre. Have you ever seen an old movie, read an old book, heard an old song you enjoyed? If so, what if it had been impossible to buy a copy of that to experience it, does that make the world better somehow? That scenario is only a "crime" because corporations lobbied for it and decided it is. As a couple people pointed out, before Disney came along, some of this stuff would have entered public domain anyway. The law is usually a good indicator of what's right and wrong, but sometimes it isn't and needs to be revised. In your example, murder is easy to argue is wrong in almost all scenarios, regardless of what the law says. You're actively depriving someone of life, the harm is obvious. In pirating out-of-print titles, you're experiencing creative works of the past and the creators are literally losing no money, because they're not even selling it anymore to begin with. So it begs the question, why is that wrong?
Click to expand...

You are mixing points. The right to consume something and ownership of said commodity, and the want to consume something / said commodity have nothing to do with each other. If you can't see the difference in the two I can't continue this discussion. All the ways you try to rationalize it doesn't change the fact.
 
oldmanbal said:
You are mixing points. The right to consume something and ownership of said commodity, and the want to consume something / said commodity have nothing to do with each other. If you can't see the difference in the two I can't continue this discussion. All the ways you try to rationalize it doesn't change the fact.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. I think what you're interpreting as a right isn't a "right" at all, but a set of rules that has been defined arbitrarily at different points in time. It wasn't a "right" to back up a copy of a video you watched on your television until the Supreme court ruled on Universal v. Sony. That could just as easily gone the other way and been illegal. Likewise, how long does the "right" of ownership last in your eyes? 20 years? Death of the original creators? 140 years? Likewise, how long does the "right" to consume a commodity exist when there's an infinite supply? Why does anything commercially owned ever enter the public domain to begin with?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're looking at this as though it's an absolute principle, when the reality is Copyright law has always been constantly redefined, that is when it's even existed. I think we're disagreeing where the separating line lies.
 
Last edited:
WBurchnall said:
If I buy a dvd and effectively own 1 copy of a DVD, for my own personal use at home, it makes sense to back it up as a lossless file on a HD. However, if then I'm adding it to a Plex server and family members are streaming it...at that point, I feel like I'm violating the license, morally and legally, as it clearly forbids public exhibitions of the work. Especially if two simultaneously stream it.
Click to expand...
The law merely limits unlicensed public viewings and your family, regardless of how many simultaneous streams within one building are viewed among relatives, do not constitute the "public." It even allows viewings among a "small" group of friends. If you were broadcasting the show to another home via the internet, or to your family members next door, that would seem to fall outside allowed behavior, but certainly streaming to multiple bedrooms. You don't have to take my word for it, the technology exists to limit this kind of behavior but does not.

Exavior said:
that is very different. If watching the movie together you both are in the same room, at the same time, watching the exact same physical copy. By your logic if I pay for a movie ticket and live stream a movie to 1 million people that is no different than 1 million people buying a ticket and watching it in the theater with me.
Click to expand...
Streaming a movie to a million people would constitute a "public" showing so the two examples are not analogous for that reason alone.
 
scojer said:
If Nintendo is going to go after ROM sites, maybe they should, I don't know, sell those ROMs themselves? And not just a handful, but all of them. As someone else mentioned here earlier, you can get a torrent of every rom ever made for the consoles. They exist, they're out there. Nintendo should just download the ROM & re-sell 'em on their store.
Click to expand...

They can't; they don't own the majority of the IPs.
 
Nostalgia is a huge part of Nintendo's business model, and I'm sure they have the sales metrics to prove it in court. Even when considering the mere fraction of overall IP available in old roms, those numbers are probably realistic. However, I doubt those losses could possibly a the sole responsibility of few ROM sites... so it's not a realistic case.
 
tetris42 said:
No, he explained himself. He said pay for it or don't use it, it's that simple, then call me entitled for suggesting people use it when it's impossible for someone to pay for it. He called your car example a red herring because despite being practically the same thing, that's legal. Pirating games you can't buy is illegal, therefore it's wrong. His stance is legal = okay, illegal = bad. "It's that simple."
Click to expand...
So a law literalist, got it. That's sad.

Although it's not exactly like that. A car manufacturer could sue replica mfgs. But most choose not to. Well except for ferrari, who does it with the full power of the law. If you drive a replica into italy it is gonna be seized and destroyed.
 
Mazzspeed said:
So when all the carts have worn out due to age and the hardware has become unreliable no matter how much retro enthusiasts try to look after it, we just let a large part of out electronic gaming history wither away and die due to copyright.

Surely this was not how copyright was intended to be used? Why not try to embrace the community that loves you so much Nintendo instead of being so hellbent on destroying it, you were such a big part of the lives of many growing up that we don't want to let go.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Copyright was intended to be for a limited time, not for eternity. Unfortunately, the supreme court stopped caring about the constitution a long time ago and through sophistry, they have found a way to make copyright indefinite.
 
M76 said:
I hope someone will shut down nintendo and other companies like it, who treats abandonware the same as any copyright infringement. Someone please pluck a giant pole up their anus.
Click to expand...

In Fairness Nintendo is making an effort to release new products which include these games. They are establishing that they are not necessarily abandoning them.
 
Lenard said:
In Fairness Nintendo is making an effort to release new products which include these games. They are establishing that they are not necessarily abandoning them.
Click to expand...
You know there is bad faith and there is good faith. Good faith would've been sending them cease and desist letters. Bad faith is this, suing them for ridiculous amounts that they can never pay, encumbering the court system for a bullshit case that could've been resolved outside of court. Nintendo would've come out better as well sparing a ton of court costs and lawyer fees.

Abandonware is a part of culture. And if companies like this had their way, all this would be lost.

But what's to stop any company from saying "hey we might want to re-release that 12 years from now as part of a retro system"

It is lawful but not in any way shape or form right.
 
Kdawg said:
now they take action.

They see how popular their mini-nintendo is, and now they want to squash rom sites that have been around forever.
Click to expand...
Well, the decision to release mini-consoles may've been born from their legal department in an attempt to fullfill the wants of people going to ROM sites, so it makes sense they'd make a statement like this especially if all their efforts had no effect. In other words, they wanna appear to be giving consumers what they want so that bashing ROM sites doesn't make them come across as too evil.
 
M76 said:
You know there is bad faith and there is good faith. Good faith would've been sending them cease and desist letters. Bad faith is this, suing them for ridiculous amounts that they can never pay, encumbering the court system for a bullshit case that could've been resolved outside of court. Nintendo would've come out better as well sparing a ton of court costs and lawyer fees.

Abandonware is a part of culture. And if companies like this had their way, all this would be lost.

But what's to stop any company from saying "hey we might want to re-release that 12 years from now as part of a retro system"

It is lawful but not in any way shape or form right.
Click to expand...

They probably did send Cease and Desist letters. I imagine that will come out in court/arbitration. I suspect you're just mad because you want stuff to eventually be free. I am not against this , but you need to make it law; not get mad at companies for trying to secure potential future profits. Nintendo is not being shitty. They are being responsible.
 
I don't have a horse in this race, except by the broader use of IP laws which are decidedly stifling innovation in the western world. If we keep this system up, don't be surprised if China surpasses everyone.

That being said, I would like it if any old title that does not have a method to obtain a fully functional copy today, be legal to obtain through the broad term of 'Abandonware'.

Further, while Nintendo is within their rights to exercise this, at least as it pertains to their titles, it is a dick move that achieves little other than being petty to a market segment that given a reasonable opportunity to purchase all these titles would do so in an instant.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
I hope someone will shut down nintendo and other companies like it, who treats abandonware the same as any copyright infringement. Someone please pluck a giant pole up their anus.
Click to expand...
Nothing is abandonware for Nintendo. They are still selling all that same crap. Not just the NES classic, but on the 3ds, Wii, and WiiU virtual consoles.

I also want to add, that they technically could claim copyright on every single rom on those sites, not just Nintendo made games. In order for a game to be booted by a cartridge based Nintendo system, the cartridge had to contain that Nintendo logo that displayed whenever you turned the system on. If that copyrighted logo wasn't there, the game wouldn't run. This is how licensing worked in those days, and why companies couldn't make unlicensed software for those systems.
Edit by atom: was thinking of wrong system.
 
Last edited:
atom said:
Nothing is abandonware for Nintendo. They are still selling all that same crap. Not just the NES classic, but on the 3ds, Wii, and WiiU virtual consoles.

I also want to add, that they technically could claim copyright on every single rom on those sites, not just Nintendo made games. In order for a game to be booted by a cartridge based Nintendo system, the cartridge had to contain that Nintendo logo that displayed whenever you turned the system on. If that copyrighted logo wasn't there, the game wouldn't run. This is how licensing worked in those days, and why companies couldn't make unlicensed software for those systems.
Click to expand...
What logo?
 
yeah there are non official nes games, lots. pretty much every multicart is unofficial.
 
Multicarts are illegal and come from China, outside the jurisdiction of more or less anybody. Nobu, I can't view your video right now, sorry. If you are loading anything but the original NES hardware though, you are missing the point.

This is how a cartridge based Nintendo system works. I believe this is true of every system up until the N64 including the Gameboys. System powers on, CPU starts instructions at a hardwired memory address. This memory address is a very small program stored on a rom within the console's motherboard. This small program then checks the cartridge at a specific memory address for Nintendo's logo, or seal of authenticity. When the logo is found, it displays it on the screen or scrolls it up from the bottom depending on the system. If the logo is not there, or you have a bad cartridge connection, you may see some scrambled garbage displayed instead of the logo and then the program halts right there. If the logo was found, then the CPU will again go to another memory location where the beginning of the game is.
edit by atom - was thinking of wrong system

Nintendo hated Game Genie for finding a way against this system, and sued them. I assume the Game Genie simply booted after the bios read the seal off the original cartridge. Nintendo lost the suit.
 
Last edited:
atom said:
Multicarts are illegal and come from China, outside the jurisdiction of more or less anybody. Nobu, I can't view your video right now, sorry. If you are loading anything but the original NES hardware though, you are missing the point.

This is how a cartridge based Nintendo system works. I believe this is true of every system up until the N64 including the Gameboys. System powers on, CPU starts instructions at a hardwired memory address. This memory address is a very small program stored on a rom within the console's motherboard. This small program then checks the cartridge at a specific memory address for Nintendo's logo, or seal of authenticity. When the logo is found, it displays it on the screen or scrolls it up from the bottom depending on the system. If the logo is not there, or you have a bad cartridge connection, you may see some scrambled garbage displayed instead of the logo and then the program halts right there. If the logo was found, then the CPU will again go to another memory location where the beginning of the game is.

Nintendo hated Game Genie for finding a way against this system, and sued them. I assume the Game Genie simply booted after the bios read the seal off the original cartridge. Nintendo lost the suit.
Click to expand...
nothing to do with the "official license" logo and there were several ways to get around the CIC so people made unlicensed games. read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_(Nintendo)
 
pendragon1 said:
nothing to do with the "official license" logo and there were several ways to get around the CIC so people made unlicensed games. read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_(Nintendo)
Click to expand...

So you are saying all those officially licensed games on that site do not have that logo? That was the point of the whole conversation I wasn't saying there weren't hacks around it. I even mentioned Game Genie's example.
 
atom said:
So you are saying all those officially licensed games on that site do not have that logo? That was the point of the whole conversation I wasn't saying there weren't hacks around it. I even mentioned Game Genie's example.
Click to expand...
atom said:
In order for a game to be booted by a cartridge based Nintendo system, the cartridge had to contain that Nintendo logo that displayed whenever you turned the system on. If that copyrighted logo wasn't there, the game wouldn't run. This is how licensing worked in those days, and why companies couldn't make unlicensed software for those systems.
Click to expand...
you were talking about the console right? officially licensed games do display the official logo but that is not the copy protection, the CIC chips are. and unlicensed games did not display the logo and used various ways to get around the CIC chips.
the roms of the officially license games probably do have the logo. I dont remember, haven't emu'd NES games in a loooooong time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this
pendragon1 said:
you were talking about the console right? officially licensed games do display the official logo but that is not the copy protection, the CIC chips are. and unlicensed games did not display the logo and used various ways to get around the CIC chips.
the roms of the officially license games probably do have the logo. I dont remember, haven't emu'd NES games in a loooooong time.
Click to expand...
No, even my copy of Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt doesn't display a logo (in an original nes console using a legit cart). It's the CIC all the way.
I'd make a video myself, but the two games I have barely work. Need to do some system maintenance on either the carts, console, or both.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: atom
like this
Nobu said:
No, even my copy of Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt doesn't display a logo (in an original nes console using a legit cart). It's the CIC all the way.
I'd make a video myself, but the two games I have barely work. Need to do some system maintenance on either the carts, console, or both.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see what you are saying now. The lockout chip isn't part of the rom. You are right. I am thinking of GameBoy and SNES anyways perhaps. Sorry guys.
 
Nobu said:
No, even my copy of Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt doesn't display a logo (in an original nes console using a legit cart). It's the CIC all the way.
I'd make a video myself, but the two games I have barely work. Need to do some system maintenance on either the carts, console, or both.
Click to expand...
that's what im saying ,the logos have nothing to so with the cic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atom
like this
pendragon1 said:
that's what im saying ,the logos have nothing to so with the cic.
Click to expand...
It's been a while man. Now I remember I imported a multi-cart, and it of course wouldn't boot. I took a PCB out of another cart that I got at the pawn shop, that was known to have this board. This PCB worked as an adapter and would unlock the console. I can't remember the name of the game but it was terrible, nobody wanted it. They took the Famicom version that didn't have the lockout chip, because there must have been a stockpile laying around, and built that adapter board and put it all inside an NES cartridge. I imagine you know the game? Was it some sort of ice themed, Eskimo or igloo type thing?
 
pendragon1 said:
that's what im saying ,the logos have nothing to so with the cic.
Click to expand...
Right, i got that, was more responding to the second part:
the roms of the officially license games probably do have the logo. I dont remember, haven't emu'd NES games in a loooooong time.
Click to expand...
Sorry that wasn't clear.
 
atom said:
I think I found the game I was talking about, although there might be others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromite
Click to expand...
that's pin adapting. the famicon was 60 the nes was 72 pin. there were other Chinese carts that were like what you describe though. and that wiki says HES made unlicensed games that where a dongle/adapter to intercept the CIC code from an original cart(didn't know about that one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top