Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Console games, copyright, and obsolete hardware.

By seebs in Op-Ed
Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:56:23 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

As early console game systems become harder to find, and game media are lost or destroyed, the chances increase that some console games will be forever lost. This is of no benefit to society, and copyright law should be amended to prevent this.


It seems to me that, while console games may not be great literature, they are nonetheless of some interest, and steps should be taken to preserve them for posterity. Emulation is a good starting point; emulators exist for many gaming systems, from the Atari 2600 through the Nintendo 64.


However, emulation alone doesn't let you play games; you also need copies of the games. With CD-based games, it's fairly easy to simply play existing copies in a computer's CD-ROM drive. With cartridge-based games, however, special hardware must be used to extract the bytes. Worse, the same legislation that (probably legitimately) bans the creation of "backups" of games (used mostly for piracy, frankly) probably also bans these.


The purpose of copyright law is to create a deal whereby creators are ensured some reasonable control over their created works. However, in the case of video games, by the time copyright has expired on a game, the chances are that the technology to read it will be long lost; who imagines being able to find a functioning Nintendo system in seventy-five years?


With this in mind, I propose that copyright law be amended to allow for unrestricted copying and distribution of certain items. The exact rule, it turns out, is very hard to craft; the intent is to allow the archival of media that are on the verge of becoming unreadable - but before they become unreadable.


The intention of this is not to compete with the sale of new video games - indeed, most people would have no interest in older video games. Rather, it's to provide a way for enthusiasts and collectors to preserve the data and machine specifications.


Is this really useful? Probably not. However, copyright law has been based on the knowledge that a work will survive past the time when it leaves copyright and enters the public domain. With the creation of works which cannot survive that long, we need to consider changing the duration of copyright for these works.


This isn't to say that such programs should enter the public domain entirely. However, I think that Sega could survive in a world in which, ten years after the last Sonic the Hedgehog cartridge was made, people were welcome to copy old Sonic the Hedgehog cartridges, even though Sega could still retain ownership of the Sonic character, and full protection on newer games.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Copyright on games...
o Shouldn't exist. 11%
o Should be limited to a number of years. 48%
o Should be limited by availability of compatible hardware. 30%
o Should be just like it is now. 10%

Votes: 118
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by seebs


Display: Sort:
Console games, copyright, and obsolete hardware. | 103 comments (88 topical, 15 editorial, 1 hidden)
direct your legislation efforts elsewhere (4.33 / 6) (#2)
by intuition on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 07:39:01 PM EST

Here is the way around your problem :

1. Simple illegally copy said copyrighted works onto media w/ longetivity.

2. Wait for copyright to expire.

3. Distribute.

Sometimes, the best way around a problem is through a quasi-legal solution. Not through the introduction of laws you cannot begin to define.

The exact rule, it turns out, is very hard to craft; the intent is to allow the archival of media that are on the verge of becoming unreadable - but *before* they become unreadable

Misnumbered (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by luserSPAZ on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 10:23:58 AM EST

I think you misnumbered that.  It ought to read.

2. Die.
3. Wait for copyright to expire.
4. Have your next of kin distribute.

Recall that in the USA, copyright is life of the creator + 75 years.  Nobody can afford to wait around for things to fall into the public domain anymore.

[ Parent ]

What you are really talking about (4.10 / 10) (#11)
by jann on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 09:31:56 PM EST

is abondonware copywrite. ie when a protected work is effeictively abandoned it's copywrite should fall into the public domain ... which may occur before the statutory copywrite actually lapses. This makes sense. And because the material has been abandoned (a state defined through statute) there is no need to contact the copywrite holder as he no longer cares ('cause he abandoned it)

So, Zerowing is considered abandoned, it gets PDed, 2 years later the AYBABTU thing happens, Zerowing regains enormous popularity, the old copywrite holders get shitty because they can not seek royalties due to the abandonware/PD thing.  It is not fair on them. System falls down.

And we are back to what we have now. Expiry of copywrite after a "large" interval of time which is predefined by statute.

The purpose of copyright law is to create a deal whereby creators are ensured some reasonable control over their created works. However, in the case of video games, by the time copyright has expired on a game, the chances are that the technology to read it will be long lost; who imagines being able to find a functioning Nintendo system in seventy-five years?

Nope ... the purpose of copywrite law is to provide exclusivity of reproduction. It is up to the copywrite holder to make deals, as they see fit, to enable distribution.

With this in mind, I propose that copyright law be amended to allow for unrestricted copying and distribution of certain items. The exact rule, it turns out, is very hard to craft; the intent is to allow the archival of media that are on the verge of becoming unreadable - but before they become unreadable.

This exists. Make a personal copy if it is that important to you. Technically it is illegal but you will never get prosecuted ... kinda like jaywalking.

Question (4.66 / 3) (#13)
by roystgnr on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 09:38:04 PM EST

Under our current system, do you know approximately how much money the Zero Wing creators received in AYBABTU inspired royalties?

[ Parent ]
FUN FACT (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by BinaryTree on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:08:26 AM EST

None. Toaplan (the original developers of Zero Wing) no longer exist.

[ Parent ]
Zero Wing (4.50 / 2) (#14)
by baberg on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 09:39:48 PM EST

Yeah, except that Zero Wing is an incredibly shitty game that is unnecessarily hard from the first level and frustrates anybody who has an ounce of sense. No amount of hilariously bad Engrish can prevent that.

And for most games (as I pointed out in an editorial comment below) the EULA permits a single archival copy. And, FWIW, so does Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 of US Code.

[ Parent ]

Why unfair? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by pyro9 on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:36:44 AM EST

Copyright exists (at least in the U.S.) to promote the sciences and useful arts. More specifically, it is meant to provide exclusivity for a limited time so that an author is encouraged to produce and publish works and can make a living doing so.

All abandonware represents a perversion of that intent. It is a case where author and publisher have made a work unavailable and BECAUSE of copyright, nobody can do much about it. An abandonware statute would correct that failure of copyright law.

Such a statute has only recently become necessary due to the ever extending copyright (age of Micky mouse + 20 years I believe). Without the many extensions to the original 17 years (IIRC), most abandonware would already be in the public domain, or close to it.

I propose that any work which is continuously out of print for a period of 2 years should be considered abandoned and enter the public domain.

Before rejecting the above as confiscatory, realise that copyright is NOT a natural right, it is an artificial privilege granted in return for enriching our society.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Copyright (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by e on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:18:29 AM EST

It's copyright not copywrite.

Seeing as you have so many thoughts on the subject, you might as well learn to use the right word, right?

-- E
"You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you..."
[ Parent ]

K5 really is getting full of wankers (1.15 / 20) (#39)
by jann on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:28:33 AM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
Jin... (3.00 / 1) (#102)
by CodeWright on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:53:50 PM EST

You really should take some lessons from medham -- he may be an ass, but at least he's a cultured erudite ass.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
system falls down? (4.50 / 2) (#48)
by F a l c o n on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:21:15 AM EST

So, Zerowing is considered abandoned, it gets PDed, 2 years later the AYBABTU thing happens, Zerowing regains enormous popularity, the old copywrite holders get shitty because they can not seek royalties due to the abandonware/PD thing.  It is not fair on them. System falls down.

Uh, you lost me somewhere during those last leaps. Why exactly should the system fall down because someone isn't happy with it? Yes, sometimes, someone will not get as much $$ as he'd love. Tough luck.
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

The goal (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Znork on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:37:27 AM EST

Nope ... the purpose of copywrite law is to provide exclusivity of reproduction.

Nope... the purpose of copyright law is to maximize the creation of works for the benefit of society as a whole. The _method_ of doing this is by providing the incentive of exclusive rights to reproduce to the copyright holder.

Copyright was never about being 'fair' to copyright holders. If society no longer gets a benefit, it should no longer grant this exclusive right.

[ Parent ]

Reccomended links (5.00 / 5) (#17)
by Miscreant on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 09:59:09 PM EST

Mobygames Article "Abandonware in a Nutshell - Why nobody wins"
IDSA piracy statement
Home of the Underdogs

NES Resurrection (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by SwampGas on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 10:41:19 PM EST

I heard something about Nintendo resurrecting the old NES games for GBA...which would kill NES emulation since the games are being sold again.

SNES (4.66 / 3) (#27)
by ffrinch on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 01:05:59 AM EST

Not only NES games, the GBA is getting a constant flow of what look to be direct SNES ports - Super Mario Advance 2, say, is the same as Super Mario World.

It's not quite the same situation though: I have the Super Mario World SNES cartridge and a ROM dump of it and I bought the GBA version - I'm paying for the portability.

There are probably a few lost sales thanks to emulation, but I don't think it's really much of a problem for Nintendo.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]
Dont let Nintendo hear you say that. (none / 0) (#96)
by steveftoth on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:57:06 PM EST

There are insane about their IP.   They think that anyone who even thinks about Mario without paying them money is a thief and should burn in Hell.

[ Parent ]
Difficult to work in practice (4.57 / 7) (#20)
by Delirium on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 11:36:00 PM EST

I'd personally love it if something like this were workable -- have something like "10 (or 15) years after the work went out of publication, it enters the public domain." This would provide the usual copyright length for works still being published, while allowing people to freely deal in the ones no longer available from the copyright holders (after a long enough delay to ensure they really are essentially abandoned).

Unfortunately, this would probably just result in all the major companies doing small-run "publications" every 10 years in order to maintain their copyrights in case they turned out to be valuable in the future.

Good (4.80 / 5) (#22)
by godix on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:12:29 AM EST

All your idea would need is to add in a clause that says there must be a method currently on the market that can read published data (which is all a game really is). This way when the major companies do a small run every 10 years, they have to update the game to run on whatever systems are current at the time. Hobbiest will have a legitimate way to play old games, companies will have a small side income from updating games, and the copyright laws will work to make sure a product is almost always avalable instead of making a consumer wait 75 years to get something out of print like we have currently. This solves almost every complaint I have with the exception of length of copyright.


Don't mind the plummeting noise, mojo always makes that sound after I post.


[ Parent ]
that would work I suppose (3.00 / 1) (#24)
by Delirium on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:26:56 AM EST

The cheapest way for the companies would probably be to just distribute CD-ROMs of game ROMs, since that would avoid them having to port them. Then it'd be up to you to find an emulator to play them.

[ Parent ]
The publisher could write or license an emulator (none / 0) (#84)
by pin0cchio on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:55:47 PM EST

Then it'd be up to you to find an emulator to play them.

Sega once produced a CD-ROM disc for the PC with legitimate copies of Sonic the Hedgehog games for the Genesis console. Sega licensed the KGen emulator for use with the CD.


lj65
[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by Matt Oneiros on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:52:02 AM EST

and as it would seem, with the current technology backwards compatability is far easier so you'd see more systems that have that particuluarly nice backwards compatability.

Such as the playstation 2.

In fact, I know a lot of people who's selling point on the PS2 was the fact they could continue to play the games from their old playstation.

The sad thing is, some games may well be overlooked such as a Faxanadu and Fester's Quest. Both of them quite hard (Faxanadu is beatable if you're good at that sort of thing... and you can actually get it down to a science, I used to be able to beat it in about 2 and a half hours. I have only heard rumours of people even beating Fester's Quest.)

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real
[ Parent ]

Faxanadu (none / 0) (#97)
by steveftoth on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:59:41 PM EST

Ah I long for the days when I had a 10 year old's reflexes and patience.  That was a game to beat once then never play again.

Damn good game.

[ Parent ]

too bad (none / 0) (#101)
by Matt Oneiros on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:53:22 PM EST

that it's from days gone by (although there was and is to an extent rumour of a sequel on a modern platform...)

I've never played an RPG that I liked as much as it...

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real
[ Parent ]

Compulsory licensing? (4.80 / 5) (#28)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 01:16:54 AM EST

Seems like a possible compromise is to create compulsory licensing for work whose owner still exists, but is not publishing. That means that, if company X doesn't publish any copies of work Y for some amount of time, then they must license copies of Y to any third party that asks, for a reasonable cost per copy.

--em

Abandonware (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by bobjim on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 02:07:34 AM EST

If the abandonware scene was truly dedicated to preserving old games, what is there to prevent them purchasing distribution rights to the majority of games? Admittedly this could be quite complex in cases where rights are split between several different entities, but that shouldn't be anything that a decently sized team of lawyers couldn't sort out.
--
"I know your type quite well. Physically weak and intellectually stunted. Full of resentment against women." - Medham, talking about me.
hordes of lawyers (none / 0) (#47)
by F a l c o n on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:01:51 AM EST

I like your idea, but I don't think it's feasable. For two reasons:

a) Most people in the abandonware scene are in it for idealistic reasons (read: fun, love of games, etc.) - They don't have the necessary lawyers, and they don't make the necessary profit to pay them.

b) Many corporate lawyers have a "because we can" attitude. They will defend the (C) just because. They will not give it up because it's viewed as an asset, as a "property". And as far as selling goes: See above.

--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

It's been tried once (4.00 / 1) (#72)
by ghackmann on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:08:21 PM EST

The Webmaster of Home of the Underdogs, after being given a cease-and-desist letter by the IDSA (which caused her to remove all IDSA-protected games available for download), attempted to negotiate with several IDSA member companies for the legal right to freely distribute or resell their games.

Sadly, not a single company was willing to negotiate, citing reasons of not wanting to support the games, or the weakening of a franchise should they decide to revive a series. This is somewhat telling, because HOTU is a very well-established abandonware site that has gotten mainstream press coverage, and HOTU's Webmaster even has been specifically granted the legal right to freely redistribute some games from non-IDSA members (like Cinemaware).

[ Parent ]

HotU (none / 0) (#79)
by bobjim on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 07:42:23 PM EST

I have a lot of respect for Home of the Underdogs, who seem like the only abandonware site that wants to do things the right way.

I think one of the problems is that software companies view people in the abandonware scene as evil pirates who want to steal all their IP. They can't cope with the idea that 'theives' view themselves as legitimate enough to do business and are worried that an association with these 'criminals' would damage them.

There's an obvious market for old games and currently the companies are getting zero revenue from their back-list. I think a legitimate organisation with no obvious connections to abandonware could have some success buying IP rights from these companies. I'm not sure that this is economically possible as a business model, but perhaps it could work as a non-profit venture.
--
"I know your type quite well. Physically weak and intellectually stunted. Full of resentment against women." - Medham, talking about me.
[ Parent ]

Big deal. (4.00 / 2) (#30)
by xriso on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 02:46:10 AM EST

People will do this anyway. They don't need the law to let them do it.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
i don't understand... (2.50 / 10) (#32)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:11:32 AM EST

...why the copyright holder can pour time and money in to the creation of a game (that you profess to enjoy a great deal), and you believe that they should have their rights stripped from them just because you want to be able to play metroid on your windows machine.

the legal framework exists for the copyright holder to release their control of the content. so, to sum up, it is their game, if they wanted you to be able to play it on your computer, they would let you. they don't. end of story in my mind.

feel free to inform and correct me.

abandonware (4.50 / 2) (#33)
by zephc on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:47:30 AM EST

The ONLY place left for me to play, say, the original NES Zelda is on an emulator.  It's either that, or go to a flea market and scrounge for an old NES console and Zelda cart.  Zelda is abandonware, no creator or publisher makes any profit off of it anymore.  As a programmer, I would be flattered if someone played and enjoyed a game I wrote 15 years after I released it.

[ Parent ]
you lose (2.00 / 2) (#34)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:01:01 AM EST

The ONLY place left for me to play, say, the original NES Zelda is on an emulator.
This is what is known as "illegal".
It's either that, or go to a flea market and scrounge for an old NES console and Zelda cart.
This is what is known as "legal". This is also the primary revenue model of various independant and chain used video game stores.
Zelda is abandonware, no creator or publisher makes any profit off of it anymore.
Right. I know. You don't have to convince me of this, you have to convince the copyright holder. That's my point. Just because you want to play Zelda doesn't give you carte blanche to break their copyright.

[ Parent ]
You assume... (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by ShadowNode on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:07:18 AM EST

The gamer in question recognizes copyright. Your whole argument is hogwash without that.

[ Parent ]
i know (none / 0) (#42)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:54:39 AM EST

i'm well aware of this. i'm well aware that when people talk about their mp3 collections and i tell them "that's illegal", that they aren't going to delete their 300gb collection.

if we are discussing the legality of the issues, which we seem to be here, then i'm just offering up some cold, hard perspective.

[ Parent ]

all the more reason... (none / 0) (#44)
by ShadowNode on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 05:53:16 AM EST

To simply disregard the law until it catches up with social convention. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help it along.

[ Parent ]
riiiight (none / 0) (#38)
by zephc on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:24:36 AM EST

I don't care that they want me to stop playing their old games so I can get out and buy their new titles.  Their new titles hold little appeal for me.

[ Parent ]
again... (none / 0) (#41)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:51:52 AM EST

this doesn't make playing zelda on your computer legal.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Scott Robinson on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:42:47 AM EST

Last I checked playing Zelda on his computer is completely legal... assuming, of course, his computer is utilizing the cartridge he legally purchased and owns.

[ Parent ]
Simplistic (4.50 / 4) (#43)
by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 05:23:41 AM EST

A few points. I'll keep it short so long words don't confuse you:

1) emulators are not illegal. If the game is copyright free (and many ARE), there is absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that you don't like the idea does not mean you can act like a jackass about it;

2) obviously, your hold on legal law is just as tenuous as your hold on reality: it's USED game stores that are illegal. YES. When you actually buy a game with your own money, you'll notice that the copyright says that reselling is prohibited. Even if a game is copyright free, reselling it for profit is still not allowed. Ask your mum, she'll explain;

3) Copyright laws apply only for a limited time. There are very reasonable times for music and literature (a number of years after the composer's/writer's death), but they are completely off the scale for the computer world. Come on, a game is WORTHLESS three years after it's made (and you know I'm right. Don't come back with dumb exceptions or genre-definig titles. 99% of video games are in the bargan bin six months after they come out, and in the garbage a year after that). By the time the creators are dead, we'll be wearing cortical implants and optic fibres in our eye sockets...

The problem is that digital information and computers were never taken seriously at their inception. There is no appropriate legislation to protect the makers, and there is no legislation to protect the consumers. Think of a car coming out with the bugs that most games and programs are shipped with.

And look at the damage the RIIA is making... need I say more? We need less boneheads, more people with serious attitudes around these parts :)

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:49:38 AM EST

You may be shocked to learn that i actually agree with what you are saying.
  1. I know that emulators aren't illegal. That's why we've stuck the specific examples of Zelda and Metroid in this thread. Having ROMs of those games is illegal.
  2. I was unaware of this actually, thanks for enlightening me. I involve myself with K5 to learn, and I've succeeded tonight. Thanks. Has FuncoLand (or any other video game software reseller for that matter) run into any problems with this legality? And if not would that qualify as grounds to challenge the copyright holders position?
  3. You mistake that I am for copyright laws. I am a realist. In reality, downloading and playing Metroid is illegal. I'm sorry if this observation seemed like a troll, it was certainly not my intent.
To continue, I will certainly agree that copyright law needs a good deal of modification to be relevant in the present and future world. That being said, my main point of contention against against the general Internet population's stance on roms/mp3s/movies/pirated software/etc, is that the ability to acquire these things, illegally, creates an attitude of entitlement that I find distasteful, due to the fact that it often marginalizes the artists/creators of the content.

I'm speaking in a broad sense. I realize that the artists/creators are in many cases not the ones imposing restrictions on the distribution of a work. I also realize that, all things considered, playing Metroid on your computer isn't as gross an infringement as the rampant copying of say, Adobe Photoshop.

I'm just interested in the various viewpoints that people create for themselves as a result of this entitlement. I want to offer my perspective on it and read that of others.

Thanks for enlightening me on some points, I hope you see where I'm coming from. And I hope you still don't consider me a jackass.

[ Parent ]

Legality of ROMs (none / 0) (#74)
by Eccles on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:05:13 PM EST

<I>That's why we've stuck the specific examples of Zelda and Metroid in this thread. Having ROMs of those games is illegal.</I>
<BR><BR>
If you do not own the original ROMs, yes.  If you do own them, then as they are computer programs you are entitled to make a backup (despite what Nintendo et al claim in their docs), so it is legal to have a copy of the ROMs.  Using the copy of the ROMs to play the game should be as legal as making a tape copy of a CD to play in your car.


[ Parent ]
The backup has to be from your own cartridge (none / 0) (#83)
by pin0cchio on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:51:27 PM EST

If you do own them, then as they are computer programs you are entitled to make a backup (despite what Nintendo et al claim in their docs), so it is legal to have a copy of the ROMs.

The legal reference is 17 USC 117, the backup law. However, you yourself must make this copy from your cartridge; you're not supposed to download it from a ROMz site. And if you're renting the game from a video store, you can't back it up, as only the owner of a copy (Blockbuster, not you) can make such backups.

If you want to buy a backup device for Game Boy Advance software, go to Lik-Sang.com and have a Flash Advance Linker shipped to your door via EMS Speedpost.


lj65
[ Parent ]
Re: backups (none / 0) (#94)
by Eccles on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:12:28 AM EST

<I>If you want to buy a backup device for Game Boy Advance software, go to Lik-Sang.com and have a Flash Advance Linker shipped to your door via EMS Speedpost.</I>
<BR><BR>
Lik-sang won't ship a lot of their stuff -- including the only N64 cartridge copier I could see -- to the U.S.  But somehow I just happen to have a ROM of a game for which I own the cartridge.  How did it happen?  Must be magic.


[ Parent ]
Lik-Sang ships GBA stuff to the USA (none / 0) (#103)
by pin0cchio on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:55:45 PM EST

Lik-sang won't ship a lot of their stuff -- including the only N64 cartridge copier I could see -- to the U.S.

I just checked Lik-Sang.com. They don't ship Bung products to the USA, but they do ship Front Far East products (e.g. Super Wild Card DX2 for Super NES), Visoly products (e.g. Flash Advance Linker for GBA), and Lik-Sang Manufacturing products (such as the MBV2 cable for GBA) to the United States.


lj65
[ Parent ]
no more Funcoland (none / 0) (#76)
by Shpongle Spore on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 05:10:36 PM EST

Video game resale seems to be moving to larger and larger companies. Barnes & Noble recently bought almost all the small software retailers in Texas, including Funcoland, and turned them into Gamestops. It's pretty absurd since I live next to a mall with a Gamestop on the inside and just outside of it.

Anyway, my point is that I'm sure B&N has the money to defend video game resale in court, even if it's technically illegal. I doubt many people in the video game industry are too concerned about challenging it, either, since the resale market adds considerably to the value of games and game systems.
__
I wish I was in Austin, at the Chili Parlor bar,
drinking 'Mad Dog' margaritas and not caring where you are
[ Parent ]

Photoshop (none / 0) (#89)
by kvan on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 05:19:26 AM EST

Adobe doesn't expect Joe Average to shell out $1k for Photoshop. They expect people to use it and then get their companies to buy it because it's what they're used to.

"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
A Little Off.. (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by DarkZero on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:12:28 AM EST

2) obviously, your hold on legal law is just as tenuous as your hold on reality: it's USED game stores that are illegal. YES. When you actually buy a game with your own money, you'll notice that the copyright says that reselling is prohibited. Even if a game is copyright free, reselling it for profit is still not allowed. Ask your mum, she'll explain;

Reselling copyrighted material such as a book, movie, or video game is completely legal. Just because Nintendo says that reselling games is illegal does not make it illegal. Nintendo also says that emulators are illegal in the United States and that any unapproved use of their trademarked names, such as writing a negative review of Pokémon or just writing "Oh, and I got the new Zelda game today" on your weblog is also illegal.

Did you really think that Funcoland and Electronics Boutique, two national chain stores which sell used games and have done so for at least half a decade each, have been operating outside of the law for this entire time?

[ Parent ]

It is illegal, really (none / 0) (#58)
by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:22:49 AM EST

There's a difference between illegal and tolerated.

The publisher are the only people allowed to make money off of a piece of intellectual property. Reselling breaks this tenet of the law. Ask the RIIIIIAA.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#60)
by j1mmy on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:55:30 AM EST

Unless you sell the game for more than you paid for it, you're not making any money off the game.

[ Parent ]
really? (none / 0) (#66)
by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:31:08 AM EST

Which effectively means that EB and all those other places are LOSING MONEY, by selling the games they acquired second hand for less than they paid in the first place?

Whoa... I never realized that such pure sould existed still....

Buying the games second hand is a felony already. Selling them again only adds to the charge sheet.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#71)
by DarkZero on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:56:29 PM EST

Buying the games second hand is a felony already. Selling them again only adds to the charge sheet.

Thousands of stores across the country in two gigantic chains are committing felonies and the law enforcement and copyright holders of that country are tolerating it on a national level. Riiiiiiight.

Nice troll. You actually had me believing that you were serious for a minute there.

[ Parent ]

SimK5 (none / 0) (#75)
by j1mmy on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:54:37 PM EST

selling the games they acquired second hand for less than they paid in the first place?

You're horrendously misinformed or a troll. This response only applies to the former.

Used game dealears are selling the games for more than they paid to acquire them. The only one who loses here is the person that originally purchased the game. Example:

Rusty buys SimK5 for $50 from BlogStudios Inc. BlogStudios is $50 richer. Rusty is $50 poorer.

Rusty tires of the trolls, flames, and idiocy and sells SimK5 used to EB. EB offers $10 and Rusty accepts. Rusty is now only $40 poorer. BlogStudios is still $50 richer. EB is $10 poorer.

EB then sells the copy of SimScoop to turmeric for $20. turmeric is now $20 poorer, but can simtroll to his heart's content. EB is $10 richer. BlogStudios is still $50 richer. Rusty is still $40 poorer.

So, in the end, $60 has been made from the sale of the game, while $50 has been lost. What (I think) you're complaining about is the $10 difference. Since the physical elements of the game (manuals, CDs, etc.) have not been duplicated in any way, and the license has been transferred to a new owner, BlogStudios cannot make any claims to the profit made off the resale of the game.


[ Parent ]

"First sale" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 10:22:02 AM EST

Reselling books, for instance, has been legal for far longer than FunCoLand, or video games, or computers, or the RIAA, or even electronics, have existed. In fact, when Ben Franklin was tying strings to kites, secondhand books were available in Philadelphia.

[ Parent ]
A link (none / 0) (#68)
by Happy Monkey on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:56:38 AM EST

to First Sale Doctrine.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Six sections of Title 17, United States Code (none / 0) (#82)
by pin0cchio on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:45:47 PM EST

Here are some useful links to six relevant sections of Title 17, United States Code:
lj65
[ Parent ]
not in the USA, anyway (none / 0) (#65)
by treetops on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 10:37:49 AM EST

2) obviously, your hold on legal law is just as tenuous as your hold on reality: it's USED game stores that are illegal. YES. When you actually buy a game with your own money, you'll notice that the copyright says that reselling is prohibited. Even if a game is copyright free, reselling it for profit is still not allowed. Ask your mum, she'll explain;

By your use of the word "mum", I am going to guess that you are British. In the USA, there is something called "first sale doctrine" which means that once you buy something from it's producer, the producer can no longer control what you do with it. For example, once you buy a book from Amazon, Addison Wesley can't tell you what to do. You can resell it, give it away, lend it out to all your friends, or even set it on fire. Many software companies are trying to avoid this by selling "licenses" to software, which they claim are non-transferable. Personally, I think that such a claim is nonsense, but I don't generally traffic in mass-market computer software anyway.

As for games, I have quite a collection of US-purchased games, and none of them have license agreements attached to them. When I buy a game, I am not licensing it. I am buying a copy, which I may resell, lend, burn, etc. at my will.

Lastly, I've noticed in some UK-published books, notices along the lines of "Except in the USA, this book may not be re-sold, hired out, etc. without authorization of the publisher" (sorry, I don't have any books like this on me now). Am to assume that there is no equivalent to "first sale" in the UK?
--tt
[ Parent ]

Good question (none / 0) (#88)
by squigly on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 05:06:09 AM EST

Am to assume that there is no equivalent to "first sale" in the UK?

I think there must be.  There's no way that the huge second-hand book market over here is illegal. Presumably the US is the only country in which this has an actual legal precedent.  The publishers are just trying to cover as many bases as possible.

It might be covered by a different act of course.

[ Parent ]

Context (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by DarkZero on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:07:13 AM EST

This is what is known as "illegal".

This is what is known as "legal". This is also the primary revenue model of various independant and chain used video game stores.

Both of these statements are absolutely irrelevant. The topic of discussion is what the law SHOULD be, not what the law IS. The poster that you're quoting is fully aware of what is legal and what is illegal and is disagreeing with the law.

[ Parent ]

And the point is (none / 0) (#77)
by zocky on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 05:41:09 PM EST

The ONLY place left for me to play, say, the original NES Zelda is on an emulator.

This is what is known as "illegal".

The point of the article is that it should be legal. As other people already remarked, copyright is not really a right, it is a privilege (IMHO, it should be called copyprivilege). It was introduced to enable authors not to be ripped of by bootleggers. If author is no longer making any profit on the work, it's logical it should default back to public property.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

You're wrong (none / 0) (#67)
by jayhawk88 on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:51:50 AM EST

Just the other day a friend of mine went and picked up a copy of Legend of Zelda for the NES as a used computer game shop. The battery still worked an everything, though if it had not, we could have probably cracked the case and replaced it with a new one. We played it on an old NES of ours that had been repaired by ordering a new "cartridge cradle" and ZIF connector from a company that specializes in refurbished parts for such things. The game shop that we bought Zelda at also had refurbished NES's on sale for a very reasonable price.

In other words, it is still possible to play these old games without violating Nintendo's copyright through emulation.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Copyright is constitutionally limited (none / 0) (#69)
by quasipalm on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:16:54 PM EST

From the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

I'm not sure when the first Zelda came out, but I feel that 10 years is enough time for a copyright holder to profit from a video game.

But, copyright issues aside, Nintendo should be happy that people still want to play their old video games. Having old Zeldas free on the net surely helps them sell new Zeldas. If I was them, I'd allow free downloads of the older games to help strengthen the Zelda brand name.

(hi)
[ Parent ]
Watch out for that tree (none / 0) (#81)
by pin0cchio on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:37:55 PM EST

by securing for limited times

Does not apply. Should ethically, but doesn't legally. Under the current binding interpretation of USA copyright law (Circuit Court opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which will soon go before the Supreme Court), a "limited time[]" of one million years would be constitutional.

Here's how to help.


lj65
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#37)
by widoxm on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:24:33 AM EST

It is very unlikely that the person/people who poured time and effort into a particular game own the copyright. The software house that sold it own the copyright.
Much though the original programmers may want their creation set free, they do not own it, and so it is not up to them.

[ Parent ]
you mangle my words (none / 0) (#40)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 04:50:52 AM EST

I did not say "time and effort", i said "time and money". Money being what the copyright holders had and the actual programmers didn't. If the original programmers wanted their games set free they should not have created them in the legal standing that they did.

[ Parent ]
"stripped" ? (none / 0) (#45)
by F a l c o n on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 05:58:38 AM EST

that they should have their rights stripped from

This is your fallacity. They don't get any rights stripped. Remember that copyright is a given right, and for a limited time, too. They don't lose a right, they just don't receive it for as long.
(very much like being told that the "free drink with every meal" offer has been discontinued due to massive abuse. would you say the shop is taking your drinks away?)
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

defending of copyright (none / 0) (#49)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:32:09 AM EST

it's my understanding that if the copyright holder fails to challenge infringement then they effectively lose their hold on the copyright according to the current laws. am i mistaken?

[ Parent ]
Yes, you're mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by BadDoggie on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 07:16:14 AM EST

You're thinking of Trademark law and the idea of dilution. I can selectively enforce copyrights I own, allowing some to publish my words freely -- such as on K5 -- and I can, at the same time, charge the Times a bundle for publishing the same words. They can only quote from the article I wrote here under "fair use"; if they publish too much of it, I nail 'em at $100/word or so, rather than the general freelance rate of around $0.04/word.

woof.

Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
[ Parent ]

thanks (none / 0) (#54)
by voltron on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:11:50 AM EST

again, i'm informed. thanks.

[ Parent ]
Because... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Znork on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:22:35 AM EST

... the foundation of intellectual property is that it exists to promote the creation of new works for the good of society as a whole, through the means of extending for a limited time exclusive special rights to the authors of those works.

Abandonware, and abandonbooks, or abandon-anything do not add to the public pool of available works because by the time copyright on them lapses they are likely to be nonexistent. Nor is the time for which the rights are granted limited, also because it lasts the time during which the work exists.

Therefore there is no gain for society in granting such works the protection of copyright, and the protection should be voided.

Intellectual property does not exist in a social vacuum, it exists as a tradeoff to maximize public good. If it doesnt, it should be removed.

[ Parent ]

The Law Is Irrelevant (4.33 / 3) (#46)
by DarkZero on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:01:43 AM EST

I've seen this type of article before, but I still don't see their relevance. Because of the internet, there are currently large, dedicated international groups like all of the people that contribute to the MAME project that find every game they can, dump them, and then preserve them by circulating them all over the world to thousands or tens of thousands of interested people. Yes, this is illegal in countries like the United States, but because there are countries where it IS legal, these ROMs will never fully disappear. In fact, I think there are only a handful of very rare arcade games that the MAME team has declared utterly extinct and for more popular forms of gaming such as console systems like the Super Nintendo, every single game has been dumped and is readily available from hundreds of sites on the web that are being served from all over the world.

Until any of these governments have the ability to control the entire internet and every online and offline computer system on the planet, I don't really see where the law is relevant to this issue. I guess some people think it would be nice to have a rubber stamp from their government saying that what they're doing isn't breaking any completely unenforced copyright laws, but it's not really a necessity.

All of this, of course, is completely divorced from the concept of selling these old ROMs to people for money. That's a completely different legal, ethical, and law enforcement issue.

How do copyright defenders deserve to live? (2.00 / 5) (#56)
by Fen on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:10:39 AM EST

Trying to figure this one out. How exactly do they deserve to keep living when they are so stupid?
--Self.
Copyright law is broken (4.66 / 6) (#61)
by rdskutter on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 09:57:28 AM EST

Copyright law as it stands has become so skewed towards corporate profits. It no longer serves its original purpose of releasing copyrighted works into society after a useful period of time has passed.

Copyright law is so broken that nay ammendments will only make it more broken. The only way to get back to a situation where copyright law benefits society is to rip it all up and start again.


If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE

there is no such thing (none / 0) (#90)
by adequate nathan on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:04:36 AM EST

As a kurobot.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Cryptic (none / 0) (#91)
by rdskutter on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:12:19 AM EST

Tell us what you mean.


If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
[ Parent ]

not nearly as cryptic (none / 0) (#92)
by adequate nathan on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 08:03:38 AM EST

As some comment ratings that will remain unremarked upon.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Alternative suggestion: copyright libraries (4.00 / 2) (#62)
by pjc50 on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 10:00:12 AM EST

In the UK, the libraries of the British Museum and the Universites of Oxford and Cambridge are "oopyright libraries", entitled to a copy of every book published. They have huge collections of everything that has been published in the past few hundred years. This makes it a lot harder for works to "disappear".

If funding could be found, a similar arrangement would make sense for games.

don't forget (none / 0) (#100)
by 5pectre on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 03:55:59 PM EST

the National Library of Wales (in Aberystwyth) afaik there is one in Scotland aswell

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

[ Parent ]
Basic Premise false (4.00 / 1) (#70)
by X3nocide on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 12:29:08 PM EST

The idea that as a video game gets older its probablity of being lost is not true. You don't think companies keep copies of their hardware and software in their corporate archives? All successful ones do. Atari is bought and sold for its liscenses to older games. Some companies like Digital Eclipse make their living porting arcade and other old games from this process.

And even if it was true, I don't think reducing copyright protections for video games to five or ten years would solve this. After all, who will preserve and make available to the public all the Pacman knock off games and Mah Jongg games? Instead you'll see lots of copies of Zelda and Mario. Just two years ago Super Mario Deluxe was released, a marginally enhanced version of the original. There is market demand and the market responds. Things are as it should be.

Instead, perhaps a library for the preservation of all works for future generations should be established. Oh, wait, we already have one. If you're concerned about the loss of a cultural history, perhaps a bill to better fund and enable the Library of Congress would be more suiting than raping failed and successful companies alike. Currently the Library archives many forms of media, but I don't think video games are one of them. So ask your librarian, call your Representative and make your voice heard.

pwnguin.net

How's this for a method? (4.66 / 3) (#73)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 03:16:46 PM EST

Much like the "x years after death of author" rule for most copyrights, have the ban on unrestricted copying last for x years after the copyrighted material itself is no longer published.
I think a good "x" would be 5.

In this case, the word "published" would have to be assigned a meaning that would preclude a company releasing - say - 6 copies of Mario 3 every 4 years in perpetuity.  This law would also have to protect some - but not all - of the copyright holders rights we see today.  What I'm specifically thinking of is that you'd want to protect Nintendo from Sony releasing a "Every Mario game every made for the NES, SNES and Gameboy" CD for the PS2.  Nintendo should still have the rights to repackage, reprogram, resell, etc.  A good possibility would be that the bytes can be copied, moved, whatever.  But they can't be packaged with another product a bonus pack, and they can't be sold at all.  Maybe allow for the cost of distribution (blank CDs/postage), but no one would be allowed to profit from the sale.

Hell - now that I think about it, most copyright should work this way - if someone stops providing their copyrighted material (think of a record company no longer producing certain CDs, or a publisher taking a book out of print) - people should be able to disseminate that information freely.  They're no longer depriving the copyright holder of money, because he's no longer making money on the product anyway.

This doesn't just apply to video games. (5.00 / 4) (#78)
by ghjm on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 06:33:06 PM EST

Many old black and white films have been lost because they degraded on the shelves in some studio archive. Usually there is a healthy population of enthusiasts who would find ways of preserving the film, but copyright law does not permit them to do so.

Personally, I think copyright law should be amended so that copyrights expire very quickly (say, one year) if the copyrighted material is no longer offered for sale. In other words, it should be illegal to put a copyrighted work on the shelf and deny access to everyone. (Well, not illegal per se - you just lose your copyright.)

This also solves copyright expiry. If Disney continues to sell Mickey Mouse goods from now until eternity, fine, let them keep their copyright. But if they decide that nobody should be allowed to see "The Little Mermaid" for 10+ years, so that they can build a large artificial market for a re-release - they should lose their copyright.

-Graham

Wouldn't fly under Berne Convention (none / 0) (#80)
by pin0cchio on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 08:22:02 PM EST

Personally, I think copyright law should be amended so that copyrights expire very quickly (say, one year) if the copyrighted material is no longer offered for sale.

For example, AOL Time Warner is sitting on Speedy Gonzales.

However, forcing copyright owners to give up copyrights on out-of-print works won't fly. The Berne Convention guarantees, to citizens of its contracting parties, a copyright term of at least life plus 50 years.

Here's my compromise solution: If a work has fallen out of print, that is, copies are no longer available on the open market at a reasonable price, a compulsory license comes into play. A copyright royalty arbitration panel (CRAP) decides appropriate royalties for various types of works, and any publisher can buy a license at that price from the copyright owner to make and sell exact reproductions of the work. (If you're noticing a similarity to how musical work and sound recording copyrights are handled in the United States, you're not alone; that was intentional.)


lj65
[ Parent ]
Modify the berne convention (none / 0) (#85)
by andrewm on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:35:26 PM EST

So the Berne Convention needs to be modified before national laws can be modified - it's just an agreement, not a law of nature, so the signatories should be able to change their mind.

Of course, modifying laws of nature would probably be an easier task than forcing large corporations to give up control of things that they don't even want to sell anyway, but that's hardly the point. :)

[ Parent ]

Actually it doesn't (none / 0) (#95)
by Eccles on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:17:30 AM EST

<I>So the Berne Convention needs to be modified before national laws can be modified</I>
<BR><BR>
It doesn't, actually; it does not override the laws of the signatory nations which could conflict.  (Who would enforce it.)  Really, it's just an example of the rich, IP-producing nations forcing rules in their favor on other countries.

[ Parent ]
Loopholes (none / 0) (#99)
by cpt kangarooski on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 03:36:03 PM EST

That's got the annoying loophole of if the publisher has a single copy available for sale, at an absurdly high price, which never really quite seems to ever _get_ sold, they'd retain their copyright.

Better is a simple term length. Just something that takes into account the realities of the computing world. I'd be happy at five years.

Regarding the Berne Convention, screw it. It can be revised, and it is entirely possible that the terms it requires are not constitutional in the US, prohibiting it from actually being binding on us.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

or (none / 0) (#86)
by auraslip on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 12:20:23 AM EST

You could just create a law that says you can do anything you want with a copywrited work as long as your are not profitting off of it.
This is fairly balanced. People would still have the drive to make products, and people would still have the right to....lets just say what everbody really means when they say "Keep their rights" PIRATE FREE SHIT

ok maybe not, but morally I think it's fair.

5 years ago I would have agreed with you (3.00 / 1) (#87)
by squigly on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 04:58:14 AM EST

Especially since this is the perception most people have of copyright law.  Virtually nobody has any problems with the illegal practice of copying a CD for a friend, or keeping a programme recorded from TV for longer than a single viewing.  

The trouble is, such entities as Kazaa and Napster.  Some people think these should be perfectly legitimate, in which case, fair enough, but I do see the limitless number of copies that can be produced is a potential problem.

[ Parent ]

A ?? for voltron (none / 0) (#93)
by Pop Top on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:11:30 AM EST

i'm well aware of this. i'm well aware that when people talk about their mp3 collections and i tell them "that's illegal", that they aren't going to delete their 300gb collection.

if we are discussing the legality of the issues, which we seem to be here, then i'm just offering up some cold, hard perspective.

As a general rule, I favor following the law and I encourage others to do so as well. In America, however, average citizens are supposed to have significant input into what the laws ought to be.

If a State passes a law that says road builders can only buy asphalt from the Governor's brother and any road builder who buys asphalt elsewhere is a criminal, most of us would say that law is immoral, unethical and those who support such laws are scum.

If Congress modifies the law of "fair use" to unfairly protect media giants, is that not the same example as with the exclusive supplier of asphalt?

Breaking the law is a BAD idea. Pointing out that many of our laws are enacted by people seek to use the political and legal process to unjustly enrich themselves is free speech.

So - now for my my question. Are illegal MP3s

(1) bad because they are illegal; or

(2) illegal because they are bad;

(3) illegal because lobbyists have made large campaign contributions?


My Dreamcast is not dead (none / 0) (#98)
by AgentGray on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 02:43:45 PM EST

I've had it for six months, and I've just purchased my first game for it:

Ikaruga.

Console games, copyright, and obsolete hardware. | 103 comments (88 topical, 15 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!