Interesting MAME article

Page 5 - 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?)

"Rev. Stuart Campbell" <get@lost> wrote in
news:430733d4$0$22937$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net:

>
> "SINNER" <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e7njt2x119.ln2@news.gates-of-hell.com...
>> * Zedders wrote in alt.games.mame:
>>
>> > You can't really blame Stuart for defending himself though
>> > considering the low actions of some in the thread like Sinner, he
>> > brought nothing to it but insults.
>>
>> You reap what you sow. I certainly didn't start this nonsense.
>
> "Dude is an ass PERIOD. If he knew anywhere near as much about MAME as
> he attempts to convey he should have known better to begin with. Any
> valid points are diminshed by the simple fact that he is a moron."
>
> A long time before I got anywhere near this thread, dickbrain.
>

Yup . SINNER had it pegged at the start .
--
There are known problems with this poster
Cocktail mode is not supported
Type OK to continue
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

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

[...]

> I don't think I can be bothered trying to teach you basic English
> comprehension any more, son.

I comprehend everything, it is you that is lacking little one. The
simple fact that you faile to understand how software development works
and that as of right now MAME is still in BETA speaks volumes about your
chosen profession and your lack of reseach skills.
--
David
A man was reading The Canterbury Tales one Saturday morning, when his
wife asked "What have you got there?" Replied he, "Just my cup and Chaucer."
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
> "MCR" <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news😛2ENe.11140$bf6.5037@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> In the UK where I live, there is no fair-use rights, none. Also within
>> the EU (and US) it is illegal to own ROMs PERIOD. You cannot have
>> 'backups' of boards that you own, you cannot keep ROM images that are
>> copyrighted on your HD to use with an emulator... it is ILLEGAL.
> This isn't quite true. If you read any of the articles on the subject on my
> site, you'd know that the UK copyright laws explicitly allow you to make a
> backup of "computer software". Interestingly, the recent EUCD effectively
> renders it impossible to legally *exercise* that right, but the right is
> still there on the statutes.

ROMs don't always fall into that catergory though, since its on a read
only piece of hardware (notice I said hardware and not media)
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Ok, this chain of discussion is going on-and-on, but not resolving
anything. Let's do a poll. Reply to this posting if you believe Rev.
Stuart is a tosser, reply to the next posting by me if you believe
that on the whole he has valid points. The count of replies is final,
no comments required.

Mediator.


On 15 Aug 2005 10:02:27 GMT, "Zedders" <no@no.com> wrote:

>http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
>Cribbed from elsewhere 😉
>
>He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
>(availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
>of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
>towards most here that love MAME for what it is.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:42:58 +0100, Mediator
<Mediator@blahblahblah.com> wrote:

>Ok, this chain of discussion is going on-and-on, but not resolving
>anything. Let's do a poll. Reply to this posting if you believe Rev.
>Stuart is a tosser, reply to the next posting by me if you believe
>that on the whole he has valid points. The count of replies is final,
>no comments required.
>
>Mediator.

Aye....He's a tosser
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

....and as promissed, reply this posting if you believe that on the
whole Rev. Stuart has valid points. The count of replies is final, no
comments required.

Mediator.


On 15 Aug 2005 10:02:27 GMT, "Zedders" <no@no.com> wrote:

>http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/mameover.htm
>
>Cribbed from elsewhere 😉
>
>He makes a lot of valid points and a few slightly misleading
>(availability of roms) though it is slowly getting to that point, some
>of which could be backed up by a certain poster here and their attitude
>towards most here that love MAME for what it is.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"SINNER" <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in message
news:mvikt2xm8f.ln2@news.gates-of-hell.com...

> Oooh, look, its a sock.

Enjoy yourself while you can. You'll be drafted off to Iraq soon.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

In a parallel universe, Anti-Mediator said exactly the opposite of:

> Ok, this chain of discussion is going on-and-on, but not resolving
> anything. Let's do a poll. Reply to this posting if you believe Rev.
> Stuart is a tosser, reply to the next posting by me if you believe
> that on the whole he has valid points. The count of replies is final,
> no comments required.
>
> Mediator.

Interesting idea.

He's either an elaborate troll or a definite jerk. Either way that would
count as a tosser as you'd say.

*-) K.os
--
"He imagined for a moment his itinerary connecting up all the dots in the
sky like a child's numbered dots puzzle. He hoped that from some vantage
point in the Universe it might be seen to spell a very, very rude word" -
D. N. Adams
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote in alt.games.mame:
> "SINNER" <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mvikt2xm8f.ln2@news.gates-of-hell.com...

>> Oooh, look, its a sock.

> Enjoy yourself while you can. You'll be drafted off to Iraq soon.

So, I go back and rebuild this whole pathetic thread and guess what...

Zedders was the OP.

Things that make you go Hmmm...

My initial Sock comment was premature but seemed suiting at the time. It
now seems blatantly obvious. Even if I am in fact wrong, which I doubt,
I'd say you've done significant damage to any reputation you think you may
have had in the 'Scene' here and anywhere else you've posted your
pathetic ramblings.

I hope you have a fallback career, like maybe selling garage sale finds
on Ebay.

--
David
The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more
important to do.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
> You're not really listening. I don't dispute that Ultracade's actions may
> have wasted some of Aaron's time, and hence perhaps delayed (rather than
> actually damaged) MAME's progress. Where I disagree with you is in saying
> the blame for that can be laid at the door of ROM sellers because they were
> blamed by Ultracade. Ultracade had no right whatsoever to take the action
> they did. I don't see any way in which they could claim their action was
> justified on account of ROM sellers. What business are ROM sellers of
> Ultracades? None.

It's not their business, but they felt threatened by the illegal
competition, so they thought to make it their business. If you talk to the
people there, they'll tell you that is how they feel.

> Therefore, EVEN IF Ultracade say that's why they did what they did, the
> damage to MAME (if any) is *entirely 100% Ultracade's fault*, not the ROM
> sellers', because Ultracade's excuse simply isn't valid. Ultracade did not
> own any of the rights to the ROMs, therefore they have no defence for what
> they did.

Whether or not the fault is directly the ROM sellers or not does not
change that they did spur the actions of others. No ROM sellers, and
Ultracade (which do produce legal arcade cabinets with legal classic
games) would have probably not been pissed off.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at) hotmail (d0t) com> wrote in message
news:da0hg1du0vh6c3qrae49gtllhvvujqd4m1@4ax.com...
> >They might be willing, but they're nowhere near as good, or people would
> >employ them instead of me. Much like ROM sellers (and maybe this is why I
> >can't find it in me to condemn them), I get paid because I provide a
service
> >that people think is worth paying for.
> >
> or they simply don't want to be paid for.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

> We could sell MAME, we could charge DreamArcades etc. the right to use
> MAME, I'm pretty sure they'd be quite willing to pay a small charge.
> We don't, because we don't want to.

Good for you. I think it's great when people do stuff and make it available
for free, just for the love of it. I've spent thousands of hours of my life
doing exactly that, despite your rather snide personal dig. But like I say,
you don't have any right to dictate to the rest of the world how they
conduct their lives. You don't own the ROMs of old arcade games any more
than the DVD sellers do, nor does creating MAME give you any quasi-rights
over them.

> Making a profit doesn't make somebody scum, freeloading on other
> peoples work,

Aren't *you*, though? You're deriving enjoyment (presumably) out of coding
MAME. But that enjoyment is derived, fundamentally, from the work of the
people who created the arcade hardware and the game code that ran on it. Are
you giving these people any money? No. "Freeloading" doesn't have to be
about making money - a lot of people would describe piracy as "freeloading",
but that's what you're doing every time you get an illegal copy of a ROM
Aaron Giles, on his website, describes his joy at playing Mappy through
emulation. Did he send Namco any money for that enjoyment?

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't *actually* think the MAME team are
freeloading pirates, and as I said above, I hugely commend you for doing
MAME for free. Heaven knows I've praised and defended the project in print
often enough. But I don't like hypocrisy, no matter where it comes from.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:57:13 GMT, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>> We don't want ROM adverts on mame.net, its a liability, it could
>> easily be argued that we were being supported by people making a
>> profit from selling illegal materials. In the end we've even had to
>> abandon mame.net and move the official site over to mamedev.com where
>> we actually have control over the ads (more to the point we have no
>> ads) We don't want the liability of having such ads on the official
>> page.
>>
>> To many it may be obvious we don't support these services, but to the
>> uninformed, and legal teams it isn't.
>
>You are not basing those comments on fact. Suppose I were to start
>selling illegal DVD's with movies on, and it said "in case of problems,
>call billgates@msn.com" does that mean billy is liable? no. You got
>nothing to worry about.
>

There have been cases where people have been found responsible for
linking to illegal content. It could easily be argued that the
adverts constitute such and thus put us in the proverbial legal frying
pan. We couldn't afford this risk that these morons were subjecting
us to despite our best efforts to block them. We were left with
little choice but to move the official site to a server under our
direct control with no advertising.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
> But like I say, you don't have any right to dictate to the rest of the
> world how they conduct their lives. You don't own the ROMs of old
> arcade games any more than the DVD sellers do, nor does creating MAME
> give you any quasi-rights over them.

No, but they can place EULA restrictions and change what is usable in
MAME.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

MCR's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body were:
> Maybe I am missing something, but I think Skid's was changing to what he
> thought was a more appropriate analogy, rather than a response to the
> rascist comment. I could be wrong though!

Exactly! You aren't wrong, because that was precisely the case.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:16:56 +0100, "Rev. Stuart Campbell" <get@lost>
wrote:

>
>"Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at) hotmail (d0t) com> wrote in message
>news:da0hg1du0vh6c3qrae49gtllhvvujqd4m1@4ax.com...
>> >They might be willing, but they're nowhere near as good, or people would
>> >employ them instead of me. Much like ROM sellers (and maybe this is why I
>> >can't find it in me to condemn them), I get paid because I provide a
>service
>> >that people think is worth paying for.
>> >
>> or they simply don't want to be paid for.
>
>That sentence doesn't make sense.
>
>> We could sell MAME, we could charge DreamArcades etc. the right to use
>> MAME, I'm pretty sure they'd be quite willing to pay a small charge.
>> We don't, because we don't want to.
>
>Good for you. I think it's great when people do stuff and make it available
>for free, just for the love of it. I've spent thousands of hours of my life
>doing exactly that, despite your rather snide personal dig. But like I say,
>you don't have any right to dictate to the rest of the world how they
>conduct their lives. You don't own the ROMs of old arcade games any more
>than the DVD sellers do, nor does creating MAME give you any quasi-rights
>over them.
>
>> Making a profit doesn't make somebody scum, freeloading on other
>> peoples work,
>
>Aren't *you*, though? You're deriving enjoyment (presumably) out of coding
>MAME. But that enjoyment is derived, fundamentally, from the work of the
>people who created the arcade hardware and the game code that ran on it. Are
>you giving these people any money? No. "Freeloading" doesn't have to be
>about making money - a lot of people would describe piracy as "freeloading",
>but that's what you're doing every time you get an illegal copy of a ROM
>Aaron Giles, on his website, describes his joy at playing Mappy through
>emulation. Did he send Namco any money for that enjoyment?
>
>Now, don't get me wrong - I don't *actually* think the MAME team are
>freeloading pirates, and as I said above, I hugely commend you for doing
>MAME for free. Heaven knows I've praised and defended the project in print
>often enough. But I don't like hypocrisy, no matter where it comes from.
>

we spend a great deal of time tracking down real PCBs, buying them,
studying them, figuring out every last detail of them. We're pumping
money into the actual PCB trade, often out of our own pockets.

We're allowing legitimate rights owners to use MAME free of charge,
encouraging people to create legal means of getting ROMs, and thus
indirectly giving back to the industry by creating demand for the ROM
files they can sell the rights to.

We're all in support of legal uses of MAME, we want to give what we
can to the industry, the guys selling these ROM DVDs don't, they're
interested in how much money they can put in their own pockets. As a
developer I feel the only ones who should be profiting from this are
the original rights holders of the games. If they choose to do this
directly, or indirectly by licensing vairous titles to legitimate
distributors such as Star Roms is their choice.

People who sell ROM DVDs, and operate unlicensed for profit MAME cabs
are not giving anything to the industry, only the individuals
involved.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at) hotmail (d0t) com> wrote in message
news:qd6hg1dbad1bte4otuuh8oiv7v1371j8jm@4ax.com...
> we spend a great deal of time tracking down real PCBs, buying them,
> studying them, figuring out every last detail of them. We're pumping
> money into the actual PCB trade, often out of our own pockets.

As I'm sure you know, the "PCB trade" has nothing to do with the people who
created the games. They don't get any more money out of you buying PCBs than
they do from ROM sellers.

> indirectly giving back to the industry by creating demand for the ROM
> files they can sell the rights to.

Yeah, I've heard people try that one in court before...

But seriously - do you think that any marginal benefit that might accrue to
"the industry" from that outweighs the vast amount of simple piracy that
MAME brings about? Do you think it equally compensates for the number of
people who might not buy Midway Arcade Treasures for the Xbox because they
can play all its games on MAMEOX? It seems to me that the odds are
overwhelmingly in favour of the supposition that MAME does far more harm to
the videogames industry than good. Personally I'm all for that, but you
probably shouldn't kid yourself about it.

> People who sell ROM DVDs, and operate unlicensed for profit MAME cabs
> are not giving anything to the industry, only the individuals
> involved.

Just like you're not.

Look, you're perfectly entitled to disapprove of ROM selling. You're
perfectly entitled to remove ROM seller ads from your websites and forums,
and complain if they put your email address on their discs. But it's a
different matter disapproving of something, and saying that it actually
damages you.

I don't even know what we're disagreeing about, fundamentally. The safest
thing would probably be to agree that you know a shitload more about
emulator coding than me, and that (after 15 years working in all aspects of
it) I know a shitload more about the videogames industry than you.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Rev. Stuart Campbell's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged
through his body were:
> "Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at) hotmail (d0t) com> wrote in message
> news:qd6hg1dbad1bte4otuuh8oiv7v1371j8jm@4ax.com...
>> we spend a great deal of time tracking down real PCBs, buying them,
>> studying them, figuring out every last detail of them. We're pumping
>> money into the actual PCB trade, often out of our own pockets.
> As I'm sure you know, the "PCB trade" has nothing to do with the people who
> created the games. They don't get any more money out of you buying PCBs than
> they do from ROM sellers.

No, and the manufacturers wouldn't anyway, regardless if MAME existed or
not. With few execeptions, the vast majority of the games playable under
MAME aren't produced anymore. The makers only generate income when they
are making and selling the item.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

FSogol's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> His analogy is not racist. It deals with blaming the wrong people which
> is what he has been agruing about dvd sellers vs mame (rightly or
> wrongly) Your analogy is extremely racist. In response to an analogy of
> the civil rights movement, you compared it to a dog. Either you are
> calling blacks and the civil rights movement dogs or are complaining
> that the racist whites in the south were unjustly provoked.

I was not comparing his analogy to anything. I didn't agree with it, so
rather than comment on it at all, I tried coming up with a totally
different, unrelated, one that might fit the situation we're talking about
(Which is ROM sellers pissing off companies).
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:33:20 +0100, "Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at)
hotmail (d0t) com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:57:13 GMT, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>>> We don't want ROM adverts on mame.net, its a liability, it could
>>> easily be argued that we were being supported by people making a
>>> profit from selling illegal materials. In the end we've even had to
>>> abandon mame.net and move the official site over to mamedev.com where
>>> we actually have control over the ads (more to the point we have no
>>> ads) We don't want the liability of having such ads on the official
>>> page.
>>>
>>> To many it may be obvious we don't support these services, but to the
>>> uninformed, and legal teams it isn't.
>>
>>You are not basing those comments on fact. Suppose I were to start
>>selling illegal DVD's with movies on, and it said "in case of problems,
>>call billgates@msn.com" does that mean billy is liable? no. You got
>>nothing to worry about.
>>
>
>There have been cases where people have been found responsible for
>linking to illegal content. It could easily be argued that the
>adverts constitute such and thus put us in the proverbial legal frying
>pan. We couldn't afford this risk that these morons were subjecting
>us to despite our best efforts to block them. We were left with
>little choice but to move the official site to a server under our
>direct control with no advertising.

Haze, I was wondering about the move to mamedev.com, and never really
understood why. Can you guys not just redirect mame.net to your new
ISP servers? Is someone else the owner of mame.net, i.e. not part of
the mame team?

Anyway, I thank you for all the hours you put into Mame, keep it up.

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

Hellmark wrote:
> FSogol's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
> were:
>
>>His analogy is not racist. It deals with blaming the wrong people which
>>is what he has been agruing about dvd sellers vs mame (rightly or
>>wrongly) Your analogy is extremely racist. In response to an analogy of
>>the civil rights movement, you compared it to a dog. Either you are
>>calling blacks and the civil rights movement dogs or are complaining
>>that the racist whites in the south were unjustly provoked.
>
>
> I was not comparing his analogy to anything. I didn't agree with it, so
> rather than comment on it at all, I tried coming up with a totally
> different, unrelated, one that might fit the situation we're talking about
> (Which is ROM sellers pissing off companies).

On this occasion, I must say that I agree with Hellmark. I took it that
way too. I can see how it can be read any number of ways, hence the
post from FSogol 🙂

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

MCR's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body were:
> Hellmark wrote:
>> FSogol's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
>> were:
>>>His analogy is not racist. It deals with blaming the wrong people which
>>>is what he has been agruing about dvd sellers vs mame (rightly or
>>>wrongly) Your analogy is extremely racist. In response to an analogy of
>>>the civil rights movement, you compared it to a dog. Either you are
>>>calling blacks and the civil rights movement dogs or are complaining
>>>that the racist whites in the south were unjustly provoked.
>> I was not comparing his analogy to anything. I didn't agree with it, so
>> rather than comment on it at all, I tried coming up with a totally
>> different, unrelated, one that might fit the situation we're talking about
>> (Which is ROM sellers pissing off companies).
> On this occasion, I must say that I agree with Hellmark. I took it that
> way too. I can see how it can be read any number of ways, hence the
> post from FSogol 🙂

Thanks. I never intended it to be taken with any racist tones, and I was
actually trying to avoid such a thing, however, if someone took it that
way, I'm sorry. That wasn't how I meant it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:04:28 +0100, "Rev. Stuart Campbell" <get@lost>
wrote:

Maybe you're starting to see why we view the userbase in such a bad
light?

MAME was never meant as a way of allowing people to avoid buying
legitimate classics packs. (although fwiw MAMEOSX is an illegal build
compiled with stolen tools anyway)
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Haze (Mamedev) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:04:28 +0100, "Rev. Stuart Campbell" <get@lost>
> wrote:
>
> Maybe you're starting to see why we view the userbase in such a bad
> light?

All of us? OK, then. Suppose someone at MAMEDev said something,
(rude/stupid/offensive, take your pick) does it mean that I should view
all MAMEDev the same, a la borg?

> MAME was never meant as a way of allowing people to avoid buying
> legitimate classics packs. (although fwiw MAMEOSX is an illegal build
> compiled with stolen tools anyway)
>

IIRC "legitimate classics packs" came out because of the resurgent
interest in Emulation and MAME et al. People that were interest in Pac
Man for example, may or may not have the classic pack, but you can be
sure they already had emulation software anyway.

BTW I am interested in your comment about illegal builds.. I couldnt
find anything on Google, care to enlighten us?
--
MCR
MAME(tm) - History In The Making
www.pleasure-dome.org.uk
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

"Haze (Mamedev)" <hazemamewip (at) hotmail (d0t) com> wrote in message
news:sfmhg15iju367c9i3kc3rm49dg77q8emfq@4ax.com...
> MAME was never meant as a way of allowing people to avoid buying
> legitimate classics packs.

I'm sure ROM sellers never meant their enterprise as a way of getting
Ultracade to land MAME in legal trouble either. See how it works? You don't
get to have it both ways. Either it's intent that counts, or it's outcome.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

MCR's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body were:
> Haze (Mamedev) wrote:
>> MAME was never meant as a way of allowing people to avoid buying
>> legitimate classics packs. (although fwiw MAMEOSX is an illegal build
>> compiled with stolen tools anyway)
> BTW I am interested in your comment about illegal builds.. I couldnt
> find anything on Google, care to enlighten us?

Typically, those are built with pirated copies of the Xbox developers kit,
also from what I've seen, many of them add in support for games that MAME
itself doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom