Interesting MAME article

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-17, albrowne@gmail.com <albrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
> buyers?

That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Mike <mdh@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 13:28:17 -0700, albrowne@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to know, what do you find so very negative about Rom DVD
>> buyers?
>
> I think he meant "sellers"....

I mean both.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

> That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
> without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.

Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
"destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
sellers/buyers?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>> That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
>> without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.
>
> Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
> "destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
> sellers/buyers?

Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
>>>That they support the sellers, of course. There wouldn't be sellers
>>>without the buyers. They use their money to help destroy Mame.
>>
>>Really? Please tell us the ways in which either set of people has helped
>>"destroy" MAME. Which elements of MAME have been lost due to DVD
>>sellers/buyers?
>
>
> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
>
> OG.

Nice answer.

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Wavey Dragon" <Wavey@dragons.lair.right.this.is.real.net> wrote in message
news:i6i4g1l83etijgg80e1ks1c8jh9r2a2hf8@4ax.com...
> Stuart Campbell (for it is he) has always been an arrogant toss pot of
> the highest order. I've sort of had dealings with him in the past
> which resulted i na rewritten article after we applied some pressure.

Ooh! Really? Do elaborate, little mystery guy!
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
about their "bottomline"?

Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:
>>Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
>>least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
>>Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
>>effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
>>by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
>
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
> might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?
>

www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.

I admit to breaking the law by downloading ROMs to which I do not own,
but I do not advertise my illegal activities on Ebay for example,
raising the profile of MAME, by saying "MAME ROMS FOR SALE". For the
record, there is no such thing as MAME ROMs, the are ARCADE ROMs etc...

> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.
>
>

The arcade manufacturers ignore the scene as they see no money is
chaning hands, and its full of fans etc... but turning the industry into
one which is generating a substantial revenue stream will only mean they
would want to inforce their IP rights. Surely you know how THAT works?

--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
>> Well, at that point, the loss of Haze as maintainer (in part at
>> least), the trademark annoyances which are taking way too much of
>> Aaron's time, the damage to starroms' bottomline with the direct
>> effect of reducing the numbers of roms that can be legally obtainable
>> by normal people. Also a much higher liability risk for us.
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - in which ways *that a normal person
> might understand*? Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?

Yes you should, as how they are one of the only legal sources for ROMs.

> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.

Also, there have been a few instances where copyright holders have gotten
pissed off that others are illegally profiting off their properties and
have tried taking it out on the community at large.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> Speaking as a professional journalist with a very considerable level of
> experience in copyright law (theory and practice), the increase in anyone's
> liability as a result of DVD sellers is precisely zero.

Ever heard of Contributory Copyright Infrigement? Of Napster? Hell,
it's not even entirely clear whether the drivers aren't derivative
works of the roms given that they tend not to do much without them.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
> licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
> easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
> Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
> other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
> of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
roms are accessible legally. The freeloaders don't make it easy.


> One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
> ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
> having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.

That's local law dependant. Not everywhere is the USA.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Rev. Stuart Campbell Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> Should I know who "starroms" are and why I should care
> about their "bottomline"?
>

Your an Emulation Journalist and you dont know who Starroms is?

Quit your day job.

--
David
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"MCR" <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2k2Ne.12581$JB4.2241@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

> www.starroms.com, they sell the ROMs to Atari games LEGALLY and are
> licenced to redistribute them. What OG is saying is that if you can
> easily obtain these ROMs via USENET for example, why would you pay? If
> Starroms makes no money, and it isnt seen as a good business model,
> other people wont try an licence the ROMs too. Without a legal recourse
> of obtaining ROMs, any ROM collecting is illegal.

Yeah, and that's *really* damaged MAME so far. But more relevantly, that
argument applies even more to people distributing the ROMs for free, by
whatever method, than it does to people selling DVDs.

> I admit to breaking the law by downloading ROMs to which I do not own,
> but I do not advertise my illegal activities on Ebay for example,

What difference does that make to anything?

> The arcade manufacturers ignore the scene as they see no money is
> chaning hands, and its full of fans etc... but turning the industry into
> one which is generating a substantial revenue stream will only mean they
> would want to inforce their IP rights. Surely you know how THAT works?

People have been charging money for ROM CDs and DVDs for at least the last
five or six years. I haven't seen any publishers trying to enforce their IP
rights as a result yet. The real reasons they don't (and I speak as someone
who's worked in the videogames industry for the last 15 years, both as a
journalist and a developer) are:

(a) it would be a tedious and difficult process;

(b) it would do them no good - if anything emulators only increase public
awareness of their IP, and therefore help should they plan to produce retro
compilations or remakes;

(c) they just don't care very much. They have bigger fish to fry than
spitefully going after some guy making a few dollars flogging ROM DVDs.

I don't know why anyone would buy a ROM DVD when you can get them free from
people like Lazarus, but what seems clear is that every time the transaction
occurs, the buyer is happy and the seller is happy, and the only people
getting pissed off are people who it has *absolutely nothing to do with*.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> People have been charging money for ROM CDs and DVDs for at least the last
> five or six years. I haven't seen any publishers trying to enforce their IP
> rights as a result yet. The real reasons they don't (and I speak as someone
> who's worked in the videogames industry for the last 15 years, both as a
> journalist and a developer) are:
>
> (a) it would be a tedious and difficult process;

They went after websites distributing roms, you know? It's not a big
step for them to go after the reason why the roms are distributed in
the first place.


> (c) they just don't care very much. They have bigger fish to fry than
> spitefully going after some guy making a few dollars flogging ROM DVDs.

Maybe not. OTOH, the RIAA is not afraid to go after small time music
downloaders. And in any case, we're not talking of legal action after
the people who are selling the roms, we're talking legal actions
against mame and the mamedevs.


> I don't know why anyone would buy a ROM DVD when you can get them free from
> people like Lazarus, but what seems clear is that every time the transaction
> occurs, the buyer is happy and the seller is happy, and the only people
> getting pissed off are people who it has *absolutely nothing to do with*.

Absolutely nothing? Would you say the guy whose email address is on
some of these DVDs as a "ask for support with mame there" has
absolutely nothing to do with it for instance?

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9d24.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
> Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
> alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
> roms are accessible legally.

That hasn't been the case for the last eight years of MAME's development,
why should it suddenly become so now?

> The freeloaders don't make it easy.

You haven't explained a single way in which DVD sellers make this situation
worse than people distributing the ROMs for free.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
> "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndg9d24.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
>> Yes. And part of what is needed to ensure that the games are still
>> alive in the future (which is the entire point of Mame) is that the
>> roms are accessible legally.
>
> That hasn't been the case for the last eight years of MAME's development,
> why should it suddenly become so now?

It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific edition
of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do we want to,
TYVM).


> You haven't explained a single way in which DVD sellers make this situation
> worse than people distributing the ROMs for free.

I thought even you could understand the difference between
non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including the
associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the cop/DA
interest level.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9dna.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> They went after websites distributing roms, you know? It's not a big
> step for them to go after the reason why the roms are distributed in
> the first place.

ROM distribution is illegal. Coding MAME is not illegal.

> Maybe not. OTOH, the RIAA is not afraid to go after small time music
> downloaders.

The RIAA are cretins.

> Absolutely nothing? Would you say the guy whose email address is on
> some of these DVDs as a "ask for support with mame there" has
> absolutely nothing to do with it for instance?

If someone has done that they're a moron, but it's an entirely separate
issue to the fact of selling ROM DVDs.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> ROM distribution is illegal. Coding MAME is not illegal.

Given the DMCA access control provisions, the EUCD similar provisions,
the decss cases, the Napster case w.r.t contributory copyright
infrigement, are you 100% sure of that? I know I'm not.


> The RIAA are cretins.

And the game companies aren't? The BSA isn't? Damn.


> If someone has done that they're a moron, but it's an entirely separate
> issue to the fact of selling ROM DVDs.

Not it isn't.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
>
>>The RIAA are cretins.
>
> And the game companies aren't? The BSA isn't? Damn.
>
Let's leave the Boys Scouts of America out of this, ok? 😉

--
FSogol
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9dvh.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
> It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific edition
> of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do we want to,
> TYVM).

"TYVM"?

> I thought even you could understand the difference between
> non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including the
> associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the cop/DA
> interest level.

Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual real courts
several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why don't you explain it
to me, since I'm asking?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Rev. Stuart Campbell Wrote in alt.games.mame:

>
> "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:slrndg9dvh.f0r.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
>> It has always been one of our aims, hence the hanaho-specific
>> edition of mame (which we're not getting any money from, nor do
>> we want to, TYVM).
>
> "TYVM"?

Dont Journalists have research tools?

Type it into google and see what you get or for extra points bookmark
this new tool:

http://www.acronymfinder.com

>
>> I thought even you could understand the difference between
>> non-commercial and commercial copyright infrigement. Including
>> the associated collateral damage, especially when it comes to the
>> cop/DA interest level.
>
> Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual
> real courts several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why
> don't you explain it to me, since I'm asking?
>

You must have some killer clerks.


--
David
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-08-18, Rev. Stuart Campbell <get@lost> wrote:
> Evidently, as an experienced professional who's been in actual real courts
> several times over copyright matters, I don't. So why don't you explain it
> to me, since I'm asking?

I'm not responsible for correcting your incompetence. Or your bad
faith. Whichever it is.

OG.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9fcv.giu.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> Given the DMCA access control provisions, the EUCD similar provisions,
> the decss cases, the Napster case w.r.t contributory copyright
> infrigement, are you 100% sure of that? I know I'm not.

Yes, I am.

> Not it isn't.

Of course it is. There's no inherent connection between the two whatsoever.
Is it possible to sell ROM DVDs without giving out MAME developers' email
addresses? Obviously it is. So the problem is the giving out of the address,
not the selling of the DVDs.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg9fod.giu.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...

> I'm not responsible for correcting your incompetence. Or your bad
> faith. Whichever it is.

Ah, the old "Yes, I do know the answer, but no, I won't tell you it"
routine. A classic of internet debating!

I think I'll leave it there, I've dealt with enough idiocy on this subject
already.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
Snipped

>>One fact MAMEDev are wrong about though, is it is illegal to have the
>>ROM dumps, even if you own the board, and to trumpet this reason for
>>having them (without paying) is wrong, and just as illegal.
>
>
> That's local law dependant. Not everywhere is the USA.
>
> OG.

True OG, erm... I am from the EU, which is the law I was referring, in
fact, its worse as we dont have fair use :-(
--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom