Talk:ROM image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this page should be moved under a title that better fits our naming conventions. The title "Roms" has several problems: it's plural, should be capitalized (since it's an acronym), and is fairly vague to boot. I'd suggest moving it to ROM image (currently a redirect to Read-only memory, so an administrator would need to do it) or to ROM (emulation) in order to distinguish it in that context. I think "ROM image" is preferable, since it's more general. -- Wapcaplet 00:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the page had a problematic title, so I took my time to do the move you suggested. It looks better to me now. I didn't bother listing this action somewhere for discussion, since the ROM image page had a minor history, so it's not like anything would be harmed.--Kaonashi 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I'm concerned about some of the legal "advise" on this page

I added some basic tenants of Copyright law, but I noticed there is an expansive section that was added which appears to have some advice of dubious validity in regards to the legality of video game roms. I'm not sure what should be done so I just tossed this concern on the discussion page.

Well the problem is there is some (very good) reasoning that an "unavailable" game can't be losing the company money so is "OK", whereas the legal side of things is 70 years, except in the rare case of true abandonment of copyright, such as, um, G-Nome, the publisher and developer of which were both dissolved after absorption by an obscure entity (Microprose?). So yes your concerns are valid but I'm not sure how one would write the article to give both sides of the matter. GarrettTalk 04:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (this is the first time I've used this feature, I didn't know what to expect). First I'll address duration: There's some difference in law since the US is much, much tougher with either life of the author + 70, or, in the case of corporate ownership (which applies to most games), 95 years. Under any scenario (70, life + 70, 95), no game would qualify as legal unless released by the copyright owner (CP). Second I need to take a swipe at the peculiar definition "abandoned copyright" concept that's been floating around the internet, it's bogus: Copyrights are a legal monopoly over the material granted to its owner, to assume they can be abandoned flies in the face of all applicable statutes and judicial precedent. The only Intellectual Property (the three are copyright, trademarks and patents) that falls into abandonment issues is Trademarks, because they can (if used constantly) last forever --thus public policy requires that we force people to use them or lose them. In this regard, copyrights as IP are like real property without the possibility of adverse possession (without the possibility of adverse possession). For example, If a person owns land and doesn't want to share it with anyone, the law defends that right. Similarly, if a person/company has a copyright, it's their write to exploit or not exploit as they choose. For another individual to assume they won't or make the business judgment for them would be crushed by any sane court of law (for obvious reasons). After all, the upswing in "Classic Collections" (just to name a few out right now: Atari Classics Collection, Midway Arcade Classics, Namco Museum) shows that even older games are still being exploited for profit under the legal monopoly of the copyright owner. When a company is bought or goes bankrupt, its assets are transfered in various means. Game libraries are bought and sold like film libraries. They never are "abandoned" unless explicitly so. Thus it is possible to abandon copyright, but only explicitly, like the copyright holder expressly releasing the game into the public domain (which has happened). It cannot fall into abandonment without the owners permission. - Bobak

[edit] Deletion?

Just curious, why was this edit deleted? 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Biased opinion. — mæstro t/c, 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I was new back then. I didn't know about WP:NPOV. -82.7.125.142 18:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Correction for one of my edit comments. eBay doesn't have to be capitalized, even when it starts a sentence. Forgot about that one. Mexcellent 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I am starting the cleanup of this article, and unless anyone has any objections, I am thinking about deleting a large section of the second section about mame roms, as most of it is about the mame community and generally unrelated. That said, I should be able to have this article fully cleaned by tomorrow. That is, if nobody (uberpenguin) reverts all of my edits again (which was uncalled for). I also plan on adding info about rom hacking and dumping. nothing too technical, just an overview. So, state your objections, or hold your piece.--Ridge Racer 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your original edit contained the phrasing: "ROM images (ROMs) are binary files which contain the read-only memory contents of a video game storage media."
ROM images are used for all sorts of embedded development purposes and are certainly not limited to video game emulation purposes. Your edits are mostly fine, but it's inappropriate to imply in the article that software stored in ROM is solely useful for dedicated video game machines. I reverted to an earlier revision because it was more inclusive, which is generally preferred over broad generalizations. I'm not "out to get you," but I will provide a broader point of view than the one you're primarily concerned with. -- uberpenguin 19:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be best that you keep information about "rom hacking and dumping" in its own section and clearly denote that the section is referring to video game software. -- uberpenguin 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's cool, I was just stressed becuause you reverted all of my changes, even though the previous edit had more direct references to video games. In any event, your new changes are great and this article is well on it's way to being cleaned up.--Ridge Racer 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROM naming standards

When taking a look at pages offering ROMs for download, one can recognize naming conventions / nomenclatures for ROMs. Often you see marks like (J), (UE) or (US) that show where this game was released/on what national hardware it runs. But there are others like [!] which would be good to be explained.

Add a small paragraph by all means (preferably in a new section), but don't make a huge list like there was previously (which I removed). Wikipedia is not the place for long lists of definitions. Give a few examples in the articles of some common codes (like [!], the language identifiers, and maybe [T]), but don't mention the more obscure ones like [f] or [o], which few people are likely to come across, and which are only really important to programmers and ROM dumpers. --82.7.125.142 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of ROMs as archival copies

It's often stated that it's legal for someone to own a copy of a video game (or other data) for backup purposes. Hypothetically, this would mean that having ROM images of games you already own is legal, but this is often disputed (usually by arguments that have little or no substance, if you don't mind my saying). The point is, I think the section on this in the article should be expanded (it currently reads: "If you own a physical copy of a game, making a single backup or archival copy of it is legal in the US."), and I'm looking for suggestions on how to do so. This is one of the major debates on the legality of emulation, and, frankly, I don't think that single sentence does enough to show that.

Any suggestions welcome. --82.7.125.142 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's really vague, but the US Copyright Office put out a reasonable explanation here (it's a Federal .gov, so it can be freely adapted). However, it's not clear when it says: "This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works." --does that mean only computer-based programs? I believe it does (and this is my J.D. talking), in that you can't take a ROM of a cartridge and create a copy for the computer (that would presumable work on a computer), then you no longer have a "back-up only", you have an alternate version of the game. Still, the people don't understand the arguments --it reminds me of the BS claim that having a ROM for a short period of time would be legal. For a quick refutation of that later claim from another attorney, see #25 here Bobak 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Abandonware" POV issues.

There seems to be conflict with an Anon user who believes this statement is NPOV (this is the only paragraph he thinks is appropriate under "abandonware"):

Abandonware is a term which many emulation enthusiasts use to refer to software which is no longer made available by the copyright holder. As such, they posit that the copyright holder has abandoned their copyright and that such software should be freely tradeable. Abandonware has no basis in copyright law. However, trading in abandonware is frequently justified by those who engage in it as not having a detrimental effect on copyright holders since it involves only products which are no longer being distributed.

This is a one sided POV from that of the "emulation/rom enthusiast", which in the legal world is called software piracy (a term that is not in my version of this section). I don't intend to create a condemnation of software piracy in this small section, but instead I wanted to demonstrated the US laws that do govern copyright, how they work, and how it leaves no room for abandonware in its current theoritical state. My version of this section basically states: "This is what the emulation community calls abandonware; this is what the law says about that subject." If that's POV, then it's nudged towards preventing Wikipedia from advising illegal activity (and I know Wikipedia is not meant to give legal advise, but it should certainly notify people if something in the encyclopedia is patently illegal). Bobak 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am currently working with another Wikipedia user who wants to shorten this section down to something not so law laden. We should have something soon. Bobak 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial question about copyright

If a copyright owner is NOT profiting from their work, why would they they prevent others from using it (as long those people don't profit, of course)? They're not losing any money that way, and otherwise they're just denying people something for seemingly no reason. It seems completely irrational, especially for products which are not released in certain countries, for whom it is completely unfair. --81.104.41.42 17:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer this addressing both the legal and practical basis (I'm personally not 100% in agreement, but this is how it's normally viewed --with a tilt towards US law). Please bear with this long paragraph, I'll try to hit all the major points and put them in some context: Copyrights grant a legal monopoly, for a limited time, to the creator of a copyright. The purpose of granting these monopolies is to encourage the creation of artistic works and thus create a benefit fo the country and it's society. The idea is that, with the power to use the copyright they created in whatever way they choose, a potential copyright creator will have motivation, this includes not using it (for example, there are some novelists who do not grant movie rights to their own books, that's part of the same protection). The idea was important enough in the founding fathers of the US to be mentioned in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution. (Now, to our friends reading this who are not as familiar with US law, please realize that even such an absurdly short line as the copyright clause is the basis for how the IP laws of the US are interprete). As of the most recent landmark case, Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the Supreme Court agreed that how the US Congress had interpreted the law in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, essentially, that the length of the copyright term/monopoly could be as long as necessary, so long as it is not infinite (as absurd as it sounds, that's a view that's not likely to be overturned anytime soon). Okay, so now we know that the Congress and the Supreme Court agree that granting this now very long monopoly is something important to the good of the United States. Now that we're all at least somewhat familiar with the framework that forms copyright law, let's look at the above question (I am not quoting to be rude or put down the questioner, I just want to be certain that I've answered all the points asked):
If a copyright owner is NOT profiting from their work, why would they they prevent others from using it (as long those people don't profit, of course)?
First, don't mistakenly assume that the monopoly granted to copyright owners in any way implies that the should act rationally or even intelligently with their copyrights. If a person just wants to be a recluse and create a beautiful piece of artwork (painting, novel, sculpture, video game --remember, they're all more or less the same thing as copyrights) and never show it to anyone --or just show it for a limited engagement before squirreling it away into some underground lair (or whatever), copyright law grants them that right. Now, some copyright holders have decided to release their copyrights before they expire; the rest have motivations that could be anything. However, there's one major actor in this issue that's not being addressed, and I'll hit on it below:
They're not losing any money that way, and otherwise they're just denying people something for seemingly no reason.
Since this is more of a discussion about video game copyrights, let's get one thing clear: most of the copyright owners here are businesses. Now, a human was certainly a creator --but many programmers are doing work-for-hire, creating the copyrights for the ownership of the company they work for. This is certainly the model in Japan, where the vast number of these games are created. Now think about how a business would think about this: Copyright = Asset. Copyright = Money. We all know that large business aren't usually the altruistic sort to start giving away company assets to appease people who may not otherwise pay for them. Rather, businesses are often using somekind of strategy for the holding of copyrights. What happens when a company goes bankrupt and/or out-of-business? The assets are sold. When we're talking video game copyrights, there's almost certainly going to be a purchaser for those rights because there is perceived value (ironically, the fact that there is a ROM/Emulation community proves that there is interest). A prime example is the rise in classic game collections on all the major home consoles, often many of the games included were originally made by different companies, but over time they were all bought by one company who then is now exploiting their monopoly to make money off the properties (in arcades, we've seen the introduction of multi-game classic systems like the Ultracade). If you want to move away from video games for a second, just look at movies: many of the old movie libraries of studios have been bought and sold between them as studios are strapped for cash or fold. As a result, many classic movies are still being released on DVD (sometimes many years later) because the copyright owner is still able to make money off of them. Alas, much of what seems incomprehensible to average video gamers is just the simple business strategy (greed) of companies.
It seems completely irrational, especially for products which are not released in certain countries, for whom it is completely unfair.
Again, for the above stated reasons, the thinking involved could either be irrational or business strategy. Either way, the law is on their side. The law has always been on the side of businesses who want to keep their products restricted to a certain market and out of others (just think outside of the video game example). Think about what would be implied if people were allowed to take copyrights from their owners before a term expired? Copyright is a part of Intellectual Property Law, which in turn borrows a lot from Property Law. It's not a rash statement to say that: if we allow the people to just take the intellectual property pf people, we would start to attack some much more fundamental principles of the Western system of government than merely who gets to play the video games. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense out of it: the problem with a lot of the arguments for the people who (IMO understandibly) want to see looser laws on copyrights is that they start to go up against legal principles that are much, much larger than what their thinking about in the short run. There are certainly very intellegent groups who are trying to work to reform and change this system (many of them consist of lawyers who believe what you believe), but they're not nearly in the position to actually make those changes now. In the US, the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft really set things back, entrenching the status quo. --- Bobak 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That could be extremely useful to anyone interested. Have you considered putting it on the copyright page? 81.153.23.185 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea. I'll see if I can integrate some of it into the United States Copyright Law article (which is pretty messy right now) and maybe a bit in the general copyright article. Bobak 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game copies.

I added the following excerpt to the article;

It should be noted that in game manuals, especially the games released after 1995, comment on the legality of ROM images. The following excerpt was taken directly from the Warranty and Service information from the EarthBound manual.
Warning: Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws. "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.
While such statements aren't found in every game manual, and there are companies that allow archival and back-up copies of their games, statement barring copies are common enough that one should carefully read the ownwer's license before making copies of games for any purposes.

What do you think? An adequate addition to the article? I would like feedback on how I might improve future submissions, or even this submission.--Vercalos 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um...by US copyright law, backup copies ARE allowed. I really don't think corporations can create their own laws on the matter. 81.153.23.185 13:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the "backup" copy exception is probably the least understood aspect of US copyright law (and I mean by everyone involved). The "archival" exception has been interpreted to mostly refer to libraries. There seems to be safe room for a person to make a copy of their own game in the same medium (i.e. CD to CD, cartridge to cartridge), but putting them in other formats (like a computer HD) can be a potential problem. As for whether companies make their own contracts stricter? Yes, the law just forms a baseline. For example, if two businesses wanted to make a contract with stricter rules (for whatever reason), the law would support it if the both agreed and the stricter terms aren't so extreme that they're deemed unenforceable for whatever reason. By buying the game you're agreeing to the user agreement (like clickware, etc). Of course, we have yet to hear of a video game buyer trying to return an openned game to the store because they didn't agree with the fine print in the back of the manual. Nintendo actually has one of the more readible ROM-related FAQs on the web, and it looks like they've expanded it. While this is certainly written from the company/owner perspective, it's more than likely to be the one to win if an individual were to be sued by the Big N: Nintendo's Legal FAQ. Now that I think about it, this would be a good external link on more than a few pages. Bobak 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically, by buying the game, you're agreeing to follow and uphold the license. If you break the rules set forth by the contract, and the rules within it are reasonable, you can be prosecuted for breach of contract, to be technical.--Vercalos 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A broad reading of Specht v. Netscape

There was an attempt to edit the article and state that Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., a clickwrap case where Netscape was found to have given inadequate license agreements, is a binding case on all situations where there is an internal user agreement. This broad reading is not supported by the law at this point. At best, there are currently somewhat disparate holdings in the US Courts (without a Supreme Court ruling or new legislation, it means we don't have anything final). The case that best addresses User Agreements in manuals is ProCD v. Zeidenberg, which held that shrink wrap contracts are legal (the big issue was that the agreement was not on the outside of the box, rather inside --an issue similar to manuals). Another interesting case floating out there comes from a contracts case holding from the State of Washington Supreme Court, which in M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp. (140 Wn.2d 568) held that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract. This is still a "good" holding, although there has yet to be a case that would harmonize all of these. For an interesting (fairly brief) discussion, peruse this publiction by some attorneys at Jones Day (particularly the section on "Software License Jurisprudence"). At best, the situation is uncertain. Bobak 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're over-generalising the issue and in doing so you're moving away from the legal precedent. The rulings are not related to some general idea of "click wrap licensing" and "shrink wrap licensing". Instead, look at the actual cases. In Specht Vs. Netscape Communications Corp., the license agreement was merely linked from the web page where the download was available. The user never had to agree to the license and may not have known of its existence. The court found that given there was no mutual consent, there was no contract.
In ProCD Vs. Zeidenberg, on the other hand, the license agreement was not only referred to on the packaging but appeared on-screen when installing the software. Crucially, the user had to agree to the license agreement before continuing. In other words, the user consented to the agreement before installing the software. Hence, the court ruled, a valid contract was in place.
In M.A. Mortensen v. Timberline Software Corp., in order to use the software, protection devices had to be used and those protection devices were wrapped in a license agreement. Additionally, the diskettes on which the software was contained were wrapped in the license agreement. In order to use the software, there had to be consent.
These cases are not conflicting. They draw a clear line down the middle. For a valid contract to exist (and this is going back to the foundations of contract law), there must be mutual consent. In the Netscape case, that didn't exist. In each of the other two cases, there was consent.
It's absolutely clear in my mind that, for the specific example mentioned in the article, Netscape is the closest thing. Where a license agreement is solely printed in an accompanying manual, a user can not be said to have consented and I'm absolutely confident a court would rule that way. Of course, a few things could possibly change this scenario:
* There was some language on the actual game packaging referring to the existence of the license agreement making it clear to the user that there were additional terms to the sale above and beyond those mentioned on the box, or
* There was, before the game begins, an on-screen license agreement which prompted the user to accept or decline and did not permit the game to be played if the user declined.
If you (and I stress that word deliberately) are so uncertain about this particular segment, then none of this should even appear in the article. It would, at the very least, qualify the whole section as original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We should either remove Nintendo's so-called license agreement plus any of the following discussion or we should include it with the addition of one caveat: that the legal status is on extremely shaky ground, not just in the U.S. as per the cases above but around the world.--80.193.22.182 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, anon user, the only reason we're on this downward spiral into legal citations is because (to borrow your bolding) "you" out-of-the-blue added the case (Sprecht) which you claimed with overbreadth. Because I didn't want to totally ax something that may have some valid points, I tried balancing it with other relevant case law to illustrate the current state of the law -- please understand that what is "clear in [your] mind" is POV, not the actual situation --which without any uniform legislation or higher court ruling means is unclear (at the very least, we have two federal appeals courts and a state supreme court). If you want to advise a client of yours not to honor a contract in light of these varying rulings, go right ahead. But Wikipedia shouldn't imply that there's certainly where there lies none. I would much rather remove the whole section rather than imply that it's potentially legal to pirate ROM images from very valid intellectual property. (and "around the world" doesn't matter when US case law is cited) Regardless, I'm fine with your most recent edit, but why not add a few more of the terms that each of us brought up? (I added them) --- Bobak 19:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Games ROMs and the Legality of Archival Copies

I just stumbled across this article here, and there's some inaccurate information regarding ROM dumps and the "one-backup" law. According to US law, ROM images are *not* covered by the archival exception in regards to copyright. This was decided in the court case of Atari v JS&A. In that court case, it was determined that the archival/backup rule existed because of the volatile nature of magnetic media; it was very easy to lose the information stored on a disk or a tape. But ROM images, because of their durability, were likened to a permanent (relatively) media like a book. I'm editing the article to reflect this and remove any confusion regarding the matter. Daniel Davis 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't you wish there were a way to get Wikipedia a subscription to Lexis or WestLaw? Man I miss those... --- Bobak 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ummm.. The quote I added from the EarthBound EULA was removed. Should I add it back? I rather think it was a good addition to the article.--Vercalos 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to [this] edit? Hmm... I don't know; while it is valid to incorporate the notification of one's legal rights into a manual, I would differ as to the content of the final paragraph you inserted. Regardless or not of whether the EULA at the back of a game manual contains a reference to the unauthorized copy of a game, without specific direct permission from the copyright holder any duplication of a ROM is against the law. Reading the owner's manual, even carefully, doesn't dismiss the legal implications. Daniel Davis 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIOS

This article does not mention BIOS, when you update the BIOS in the computer or the firmware, dont you use a ROM image or something for that too? -- Frap 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Request

Could somebody create a redirect from "ROM file" to this article? —204.42.16.210 08:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done- if you want to create a redirect in the future, just put #REDIRECT and enclose the link you want it to redirect to in the code. Daniel Davis 08:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirects are annoying, link directly to the article instead. eg. [[ROM image|ROM file]].
We're talking about redirects that are used when a page is meant to "jump" to another page (ie: "ROM File" page redirects to ROM image; we weren't referring to it being used in talk pages. -- Daniel Davis 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] id Software examples

More recent examples include Id Software's release of the source code to Doom, Quake, Quake II and Quake III Arena under the GNU General Public Licence.

I removed this as irrelevant because 1) these games are not ROMs (there were ports to systems like the SNES, etc., but the source to those ports remains closed), and 2) this only covers the source code, not the games (which are comprised of more than just source code). It remains illegal to this day to download a full copy of Wolfenstein 3D or DOOM. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/m/Talk%7EROM_image_6ef5.html"