Or just download them from the internet. Anyone who can't locate denienced games in five minutes using google presumably wouldn't know what to do with a tape either (chew it and dribble on their spectrum probably).
The global copyright industry isn't going to roll over because some geeks are having a moan on a retro computing website, so is it really a productive use of your time? :)
By the way if all those that argue for free distribution of software were to sit and spend their time writing new software instead of arguing that legislation needs to be altered - we would have a wealth of new games (all presumably free of charge for people to sell on compilations if they wanted) - a growing market base and something to attract even more users.
I dont know if you are speaking about 8 bits computers here, but if you think that they will ever be a market, you are completely wrong, not even if we all started to code games now there will be a reasonable market.
And Jesus!, dont you think the Spectrum scene is prolific enough?? :O there are more new games than for the C64, MSX, CPC, SNES, NES, Genesis, etc...and most of them with a high quality.
This is a hobby.
Products like the Atari flashback and apps like the Elite speccy one show there IS still a market for 8 bit games, be it fairly small and limited.
It does however support the fact there are indeed reasons to deny distribution.
Yup! I've got a Retro-Duo, plays 8 and 16 bit Nintendo games, it's not that easy to get either in a decent condition for less than a small fortune, but they're still available, and cheap (ish).
Of course Nintendo are apparently not too happy about this machine, but then again they weren't too happy about machines like the DAC back in 1992, or the Toaster NES from recent years. People still buy their games to play on the clones though, and original Nintendo machines are still very easy to get hold of.
Clones like the Toaster NES, in my eyes are just a bit of fun, I'd have one if I had room for it (Of course the DAC was basically just an illegal clone, produced during the machines commercial life :lol:) :D
The Retro-Duo is a covenient machine for a Retro Gamer though, both earlier Nintendo's in one machine. They still run original games though, so you still have to buy them, not that Nintendo will make any money off them anyway, since they're all used. Wonder if Nintendo had a backstock of their old system cartridges in factory new condition if they'd sell em' off super cheap and wreck "L@@K! R@RE'S" value, or if they'd coin in on the whole biz and be like you know what, let's sell a copy of Zelda for $800?
IBM did something similar with flooding the market with memory to drop the artificially high price of it years ago, shame about the "deathstars" though.
but I doubt Nintendo have / had loads of stock... and the market isn't that big for them to re-issue either.. they want you to buy the new tech *AND* by the old games online via the wii
I dont know if you are speaking about 8 bits computers here, but if you think that they will ever be a market, you are completely wrong, not even if we all started to code games now there will be a reasonable market.
And Jesus!, dont you think the Spectrum scene is prolific enough?? :O there are more new games than for the C64, MSX, CPC, SNES, NES, Genesis, etc...and most of them with a high quality.
This is a hobby.
For serious top-quality software there could be a reasonable niche market even for 8bits. But they'd have to appeal to old and newer tastes. Most new games being some sort of Manic Miner just wouldn't cut it. Even pretty cool games like "Gem Chaser" wouldn't cut it alone. It's nothing that can't be done on most other platforms and it doesn't really have a "Spectrum-only" feel to it either to appeal to nostalgists. The software would have to appeal to the tastes of many veteran gamers as well as the "Just found out about this!" crowd. The software and packaging would have to be taken seriously (The way it's been done with some recent Genesis/Megadrive releases, etc.) Not every 15 year old thinks C64 graphics suck. Many discover and love these things. You don't need everybody to love it you only need enough to make the numbers work.
It's a delicate balance and the research on this would have to be extensive to find out what would work marketing-wise, in theory before taking the risk. Individually, any one computer/console might not be a developer's bread and butter but a software house catering to a few platforms collectively *could* possibly have a chance of sustaining itself and making it worth its while, at least for a while.
I'm not being holier than thou since I've downloaded stuff I shouldn't have in the past but usually I've had to try hard to get it or was given to me discreetly. Most people won't go to certain lengths, not to mention not having the disposition or know how to go about obtaining software, so that they don't have to pay for it. I've worked/work in internet marketing and I know first hand that many people that create and sell products online don't really care very much that their e-books or software are being shared privately within private access because it's limited and sometimes when they're clever they find ways to use this disadvantage to an advantage. What pisses them off are piraters and leechers who talk crap about them on top of it. One snickering, self-aggrandizing, pirating, self-entitled, little kiddy gnat who finds his meaning in life by publicly, widely and openly making the warez easily accessible (and who often likes to brag and talk crap against those whose wares they are distributing whether they be big companies or the little guy slaving away for a long time to create a product and has a hard time paying his bills) can ruin it for everybody because how many people can resist easy pickings?
Oh, and you can blame Google, too.
So, the bigger problem, over whether or not there'd be enough interest to make a venture feasible, or equal problem is the issue of the ease of piracy and illegal distribution. WOS and TZX Vault can respect copyright holders' wishes as much as they'd like, and rightfully so, but there's always stuff like TOSEC and gamers couldn't give two squats that they don't have perfect TZX copies of original tapes so long as games run. People go out of their way to crack new software and buy and build equipment to dump ROMs so scrawny tapes really have no chance.
There's also the argument some make that those who download illegally wouldn't have bought anyway. This isn't always the case. Furthermore, as I alluded to a little earlier, many/most of those who would have bought wouldn't because it's easy for them to get it free. So, I think the biggest snag about unsuccess with producing new software for old platforms isn't so much just the lack of interest but of decadence.
Nostalgia would probably have to play a big role, no doubt, at least at first. I don't deny that. It would probably also be more successful for consoles than old computers, but if budget and time could be appropriated to support these to a degree then they might be worth it. At the end of the day it's business and there'd probably only be enough room for just so many software houses.
If it were viable I'd probably pursue it as part of a team. I'd rather be involved with making games for older platforms than newer ones for the most part to be quite honest, but this would be difficult. Heck, most people can't even keep a band together. Lastly, if any group were to take this on they'd better make friends with as many retro-geek-youtube-reviewing personalities and the like and take advantage of every avenue possible. This retro thing would have to capitalize on anything it can and reach out and cover as many demographics possible even if it means making many addictive, charming or inspiring clever little games, free or low cost, for Android, iPhone, XBox Live, etc., to siphon would-be-but-don't-know interest to its domain, for example.
OK, and the real last part, if possible, you should own part or all publishing rights.
If the research adds up and shows it could be worth pursuing who has the disposition, smarts and drive to actually pursue it? This type of venture would start as a small subset of the "indie-developers" group. How are they doing?
The Retro-Duo is a covenient machine for a Retro Gamer though, both earlier Nintendo's in one machine. They still run original games though, so you still have to buy them, not that Nintendo will make any money off them anyway, since they're all used. Wonder if Nintendo had a backstock of their old system cartridges in factory new condition if they'd sell em' off super cheap and wreck "L@@K! R@RE'S" value, or if they'd coin in on the whole biz and be like you know what, let's sell a copy of Zelda for $800?
You could instead just buy carts to hold just about every single SNES or Genesis/Megadrive ROM.
is quite correct; it is a strange world where the work of artists is held in such higher regard than the work of labourers and artisans (makes you realise exactly what type of persons copyright protection was laid down in statute for (and by whom)..)
I say it is a strange world, maybe the correct term is now it was a strange world.
These games are effectively free to play now. The IP is still protected to an extent ; they are not protected in entirety, nor can they be (I bet the Stampers don't see a penny of the monies made from retro t-shirts bearing their graphics on sale down at Camden Market).
Disallowing archives like WOS to host their games is at best churlish, in reality, rather pathetic and utterly ineffective and self-defeating.
You could instead just buy carts to hold just about every single SNES or Genesis/Megadrive ROM.
Not for $126 I won't, when I could buy the pathetically small amount of NES carts I actually like for a fraction of that price. As for the SNES, I want to own those games, not a SNES cart containing a generic chipboard with an SD card plugged into it.
If I was going to use ROMs ZSNES or SNES9X on the PC are perfectly fine for the job.
For serious top-quality software there could be a reasonable niche market even for 8bits.
I would love to agree with you on that, but I cant :)
I dont think anybody can make a living out of a 8 bit computer anymore, even if the game is the greatest ever for the Spectrum/CPC/C64/MSX...
I would love to agree with you on that, but I cant :)
I dont think anybody can make a living out of a 8 bit computer anymore, even if the game is the greatest ever for the Spectrum/CPC/C64/MSX...
they would *IF* the IP was good enough to get ported to new machines and that brings it full circle.. ;)
point in question.. tetris.. technically not too tricky to make on any computer
Not for $126 I won't, when I could buy the pathetically small amount of NES carts I actually like for a fraction of that price. As for the SNES, I want to own those games, not a SNES cart containing a generic chipboard with an SD card plugged into it.
When I said "you" it was just a manner of speech. A lot of people play a crap load of ROMs and like to collect as many as they can whether they play them or not and sit on their hard drives. Your way may be more cost effective for you (now I mean it literally) but it probably isn't for most enthusiasts whose interests aren't pathetically small.
If I was going to use ROMs ZSNES or SNES9X on the PC are perfectly fine for the job.
That's beside the point. A SNES ROM on a SNES cartridge running on a SNES is the SNES. A ROM is an image of the cart it isn't the same as an emulator.
This is my first post here, so first at all HELLO to all retro freaks!
It was that great summer of ?86 I first got my hands on ZX-Spectrum. I remember exact smell of that overheating rubber keyboard. One of my best memories ever. Both Speccy by itself and that smell. And my excitement. I have now one rubber 48k and doesn?t smell at all. And also have like 5 units of +2 (mostly black +2B, targeting this platform for all my further software development), plus few light guns (luckily Gatwick Airport security did not rise any alarm when I had them in my luggage).
Ok, but the reason I write this - is discussion about games, legacy, piracy, all that stuff. Back in 1986 - I?ve been behind the Iron Curtain in a funny communistic country called Poland. And we had no intellectual property copyright law - nearly at all.
If you were an artist - some sort of writer or musician - you could publish only thru government-owned companies. If you got published, government became an owner of all rights. With - just a few exceptions - like if you were a musician plus registered member of ZAIKS/BIEM organisation - first you was required to pay a member fee but then - you could get profits from your music/records being distributed or aired over radio stations or a telly (which makes a lot of sense and money for popular musicians and bands). And maybe actors or photographers as well - they still can get some profits from old shows or art they made. In the second case - you haven?t got published at all - you could keep all your rights to yourself, as well as keep your work stacked in your drawer :)
For scientists - similar case happend. Bo te a scientist and do any research you would need to work on a government vacancy, so - yeah, more or less government owned all your work. Apart of being proud of signing your work by your name and getting more or less famous among other scientists. Sometimes most valuable work was stolen from you and your director or supervisor - having higheer rank in communistic party - has put his name on it. Or a lot of other absurdal situations could actually happend.
Now - let?s discuss a computer game software case. There was no sufficient law at all. Arbeit ANY copy of ANY software was LEGAL. That?s a very shocking, but true. First intellectual property law in Poland became in 1992/93 or so - and was a bit doggy - it legalised all copies made so far. Preeetty, preeetty smart, huh? Imagine you?ve got your Windows 3.1 copy on 5 and 1/4 inches discs day before a new law - it was legal. To make a copy day after - it was not legal. BUT - how any could prove you that? No one really could tell - on which exact day you had made your copies. So for next few years - it was another doggy game period. Software was half-legal. The whole matter became important mainly for private business owners and also it helped government companies to pretend they use a legal software and have time to prepare to buy a new, legal one from legal retailers. For regular gamers things started to changed in the end of 90?s, most of them got jobs, and money to buy games, and distribition channel and publishing companies got some stable position on the market. A few pioneering companies from beginning of 90s did not make it, new companies had to start.
Now let?s go back to 1986 and my first ZX-Spectrum experience. After 2 weeks of typing-in some listings, I?ve a got a bootleg tape with two possibly greatest games ever made - COMMANDO and ALIEN 8.
According to Polish law in 1986 - the copy I had was LEGAL. And law from 1992 kept it legal as well. I could also get a ?real?, UK tape with the game - being considered legal in the Western Europe. Anyway - having one, or two, or three legal copies of COMMANDO - say my copies doesn?t work any more. Tapes has got demagnetised, decomposed, decompressed - over period of time. But I had it LEGAL - according to law of the country. And is it NOT legal to make a backup copy of program you had bought already?
This whole post is some coincidence - as my first game ever - COMMANDO - is still kept unavailable to be legally downloaded. So, as I had a legal copy back in 1986 - can I download it now and play without a fear of police knocking to my door? Should I dig into attic and basement storage to find that bloody tape to have prove - look, it?s my legal COMMANDO from 1986 so I can download it now from internet.
I am NOT saying that having a copy of COMMANDO for Speccy in 1986 - means I can download iPhone or Android version now. I?m just saying - there is more behind intellectual property law that it looks like to be - and also having COMMANDO and ALIEN 8 as my very first games in my live - was humbling AWESOME experience that set my love for ZX-SPERTRUM forever :)
Sorry for a long post. It was hard to say what I feel about all this in shorter manner and without mixing in my personal memories.
Some of you will like my post and others will not!!! My attitude is that I agree that the copyright of Spectrum software should still stand if the owner decides that they don't want to give their work away for free!!!
AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:
Luckily, most software houses and developers have allowed their work to be freely distributed and that is fantastic!!! Sadly, I never got to release a title for the Spectrum but if I had then I would want it to be public domain and would have released the code if I still had it ;) I would risk being sued by my own publisher because I would have given up most if not all of my rights when I took payment and signed it over. There is no way I can give out my Megadrive/Mega-CD and Amiga software as I don't own it - END OF!!! When I see copies of it floating around the internet do I smile :D
If a publisher chooses to deny distribution then you should respect that, there is nothing wrong with putting a case forward but it's their product and they are entitled to do what they want with it. It may be the case that a complex licensing deal came from a third party so the publisher may not have sole rights to the title either... blah blah blah
There may also be a chance that the game is going to be ported to a profitable platform and that could be somebody's bread and butter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The younger generation (our kids) have not automatically earned the right to play Spectrum games for free because they never bought them or contributed to their development (god that sounds harsh!) but I'm sure many of them they will play them at some point in their life ;) This statement excludes passing down your old Speccy and games to your kids!!! - I'm talking about a teenager in 2013 thinking they can download all the *denied* Spectrum titles they want just because they are there for the taking!!!!!!!
FOR DISTRIBUTION:
I bought many Spectrum titles back in the day and although I don't have them anymore, I don't feel guilty one bit for downloading a digital copy from W.O.S ... the publishers have had my cash and probably invested it wisely to make more money if not frittered it all away on lavish lifestyles :) So really, what I am saying is; if you once bought media and maybe binned it, lost it or it broke or you sold it for peanuts and you kept if for a lengthy period of time (not straight back to the shop next day) then I think you have purchased the right to keep a digital copy in this day and age (this goes for music, games, artwork etc.) as you have not stolen a physical item ... you have cloned something you once helped fund development.
I do agree that the creative output of planet earth should be shared once it's reached a certain age but I don't agree with third parties making money off the backs of previous generations!!!
My point of view and 5 pence:
Companies claiming they games as denied shall sell physical copies of tapes of these games - all that they deny, and give us a chance to buy and play them.
If not, they should not complain if there will be a site offering free downloads.
Copyright law should be changend:
If the sales are smaller than ?600 per year, the title will become public domain.
My point of view and 5 pence:
Companies claiming they games as denied shall sell physical copies of tapes of these games - all that they deny, and give us a chance to buy and play them.
If not, they should not complain if there will be a site offering free downloads.
Copyright law should be changend:
If the sales are smaller than €600 per year, the title will become public domain.
This statement is slightly true if not a little harsh ;) Many publishers sit on media and it winds me up to the point where I wanna burn them to the ground lolz but it's still their right to deny sale. Maybe I misunderstood your 600 euro comment but you cannot force companies to give software away because it does not sell in large quantities :)
Games are denied for the reason that they will be for sale in some format at some point in the future :D There is no friend in business!!!!!!!
Okay, it didn't mention computer programs as you couldn't just buy them in the shop in 1952 ;) but it says about any "scientific or artistic creation stored on any medium". If goverment really wanted, they could use these laws to protect computer programs.
Just nobody cared, communism was collapsing and they had bigger problems then chasing boys copying cassettes.
The comments about reading Frankenstein, or Tale of Two Cities, is a case in point - both of these books would have remained copyright for 75 years after the death of the author. It seems a great shame that now you can pay and download copies of these to read, or buy printed copies of the books, and yet the original author's families see no return (particularly given the high numbers of copies which get sold, or films made etc as an important anniversary approaches).
Sorry mate, but you're talking complete ******** here.
Why the **** should people who had no creative input benefit from a work? If J. K. Rowling wants to leave a legacy for her kids, she should be saving the money she's getting from the books now, not rely on law to provide an income for her kids when she's dead.
Surely those kids should be writing their own books instead of relying on their dead mother's work?
This statement is slightly true if not a little harsh ;) Many publishers sit on media and it winds me up to the point where I wanna burn them to the ground lolz but it's still their right to deny sale. Maybe I misunderstood your 600 euro comment but you cannot force companies to give software away because it does not sell in large quantities :)
Games are denied for the reason that they will be for sale in some format at some point in the future :D There is no friend in business!!!!!!!
If the profit is less than 50 Euro per month (600 Euro per year), the professiional publishers will make more money by selling their blood plasma. I'm not a little harsh, I'm completly harsh with this statement.
This rule is not for hobbyist programmers who sale small quantitys, but for big companies.
I asked Codemasters for buying "Slicks" on tape. They reply, they do not sell it anymore, but I can buy it second hand. Where anyone offered "Slicks"? It it will surface on eBay, the bidders will turn this 3 pound game into a 300 pound purchase... I spent in the last years over 20,000 Euro on buying Spectrum stuff on eBay, Basar, Willhaben and other platforms and ruined my health. I have many rare and common games. So I do not understand why a company deny the sales of existing games, and deny the distribution.
Do Codies have the plans to rerelease Slicks for Ajfon? or Endroid? or Wii? No, they just sit on their IP. And if anyone has Slicks on Tape and it will have a loading error, what will happen? Nothing! Codemasters won't replace because they do not take responsibility anymore. you tell you, where you can put the tape in (And it will be dark in this place).
Okay they can protect their IP, but for actual and not on obsolete platforms. I'm sure, they won't release any Speccy games, and who of the actual customers would prefer to play their games with outdated graphics more than the improved versions with modern graphics and extended gameplay (except me)?
Copyright should be removed if unused for 10-15 years, because it is unlikely to be used again after that long time. Computer business is a fast business.
I played Sabre Wulf (modern version, I think, Java on my cellular phone or Nintendo DS). What a IP-ripp off!!! - It has nothing to do with the original game anymore. Just a Plattform game with a wolf. This has nothing to do with IP. Why do they not code a Pacman clone with Sabre Wulf or Dizzy Characters? IP rights are perverted.
Sorry mate, but you're talking complete ******** here.
Why the **** should people who had no creative input benefit from a work? If J. K. Rowling wants to leave a legacy for her kids, she should be saving the money she's getting from the books now, not rely on law to provide an income for her kids when she's dead.
Surely those kids should be writing their own books instead of relying on their dead mother's work?
D.
you might as well apply that to a lot of "muso's" who don't actually have much input to the song itself getting written. Eg.. you could hit a key on a keyboard .. ONE note, and technically you can claim a writing credit as certain producers I have heard of repeatedly do. Get em in a studio without an engineer and or musician and see how good they are ;-) .
they re-issued that dylan album recently just to maintain copyright on it 1000 pressings , the lowest limit to re-new it probably.
by giving your kids a credit, it prolongs the "after death" thing on copyright as well.. and some might be advised to do that for legal reasons.. as remember you are getting double taxed when you inherit stuff (tax has already been paid on it)
there was that Chinese bloke who sold his pharmacy chain / now lives out of the UK specifically to avoid his kids getting hit with the tax, as the government would take half of his multi-million pound fortune.most parents would love to give/leave their kids money if they could, as would parents (mainly dads , I guess here).
if your applying the same to the 10% of the UK rich, what about the f1's bosses daughter amongst others. Look how many that have serious money in the UK got it via family titles etc. even "sell made" people like Branson, starting in a phonebox ? right... but his dad is well off and acted guarantor for some of the initial money no doubt.
Peter Jones has a good idea regarding it, the kids inherit what they earn or put back into society. e.g. if they were a nurse, they'd get a big sum still due to putting something back.
Sorry mate, but you're talking complete ******** here.
Why the **** should people who had no creative input benefit from a work? If J. K. Rowling wants to leave a legacy for her kids, she should be saving the money she's getting from the books now, not rely on law to provide an income for her kids when she's dead.
Surely those kids should be writing their own books instead of relying on their dead mother's work?
D.
I'll use a Texas analogy. If you own land and the oil company comes along and offers you a 10k a month royalty to put a well on your property (which is fairly common here) would you not expect that royalty to pass on to your kids when you leave them the land?..it's their land then and they get to decide how it's used etc...or would you prefer the oil to go free to 'the people' (or oil company).
Same thing with copyright stuff. If you own the copyright on a book it's fair that when the ownership goes to your kids they continue to get the royalty payments, they own the IP.
When I said "you" it was just a manner of speech. A lot of people play a crap load of ROMs and like to collect as many as they can whether they play them or not and sit on their hard drives. Your way may be more cost effective for you (now I mean it literally) but it probably isn't for most enthusiasts whose interests aren't pathetically small.
My only interest that is pathetically small is the 8-bit Nintendo though, and I only used such words as the NES ROMs I like are pretty much a pathetic amount relating to the NES library in general. I've whittled my NES ROMS down to a fraction of what I've ever had on my PC, to the handful of games that I actually enjoy playing on that machine (The rest weren't getting played so why have em' taking up space? Hell I don't even like the majority of what I did have, compulsive downloading I guess? :lol:). I actually deleted Kung Fu (Master) from my PC when I got my hands on a real copy of it as I can now play it on real hardware. Which is admittedly to some people a lot more satisfying than playing on a PC or another console like an XBOX running an emu.
I didn't mean to come off as being agressive or sarcastic, just incase you thought I was having a go :)
That's beside the point. A SNES ROM on a SNES cartridge running on a SNES is the SNES. A ROM is an image of the cart it isn't the same as an emulator.
It's not really besides the point though, as the point I was making was I'd rather own the actual Nintendo manufactured cartridge, and not something like an Etherdrive, which pretty much is the cart with the generic chipboard and an SD slot for you to put ROMS on it. Even putting a single ROM onto a cartridge isn't really the same as owning an original. I guess my point was yes you are plugging a cart into your machine yes you are playing it on the actual hardware, but no matter how you dress that up you're still putting an illegal copy of the game/games into the machine.
So you're not really adding to your collection at all, you're just spending over $100 to play something you already downloaded for free, on a machine they once belonged on.
That's pretty much why I said I wanted to own the originals, but hey that's just me, I'm not ruling out the use of Etherdrives, or similar cart based devices, I'm just saying they aren't for me (Not for that price anyway, that stands out as more than a luxury item in my eyes).
I'd like an Etherdrive to be able to put fan based games and mods for the machines onto, games that weren't commercially released, but that's such a small handfull of games on the grand scale of things it'd be almost pointless.
I'll use a Texas analogy. If you own land and the oil company comes along and offers you a 10k a month royalty to put a well on your property (which is fairly common here) would you not expect that royalty to pass on to your kids when you leave them the land?..it's their land then and they get to decide how it's used etc...or would you prefer the oil to go free to 'the people' (or oil company).
Same thing with copyright stuff. If you own the copyright on a book it's fair that when the ownership goes to your kids they continue to get the royalty payments, they own the IP.
I'll use a Texas analogy. If you own land and the oil company comes along and offers you a 10k a month royalty to put a well on your property (which is fairly common here) would you not expect that royalty to pass on to your kids when you leave them the land?..it's their land then and they get to decide how it's used etc...or would you prefer the oil to go free to 'the people' (or oil company).
It's not a good analogy though. If you lease land to an oil company, you're allowing them to use something of yours that is naturally scarce (the land). There's an opportunity cost if someone just builds something on your land - you can't use that land for something else.
On the other hand, data that's easily copied is naturally abundant. If I copy the contents of your hard drive, you have not actually lost anything.
Copyright provides some artificial scarcity so that people who create purely intellectual products can get paid, and this in itself is a good idea. But copyright is supposed to be a tradeoff between the public domain and the author to encourage people to make things of a purely intellectual nature, as it were, whether it be a computer program, writing a story, making music etc., but the intention always was that the public domain become enriched and copyright to provide temporary protection for the authors (but not their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren). After a while, a particularly well known story or music becomes part of our culture. Data (that's easily copied without depriving anyone of the original data) is fundamentally different than a physical item in that you don't lose the use of your original work if someone has a copy, which you do if someone uses your land, your house, your car or your computer.
To make another flawed analogy, a bricklayer doesn't expect to still be getting paid for the couple of years work his grandfather (who was a master stonemason) did on a public building 80 years ago, so why should the children of authors expect something that a bricklayer didn't, despite the fact the stonemason had to employ great artisan skill in his work? Authors etc. are already in the immensely privileged position of being paid for work they did decades ago thanks to artificial legal structures set up - the vast majority of people don't get this privilege.
(I'm not arguing that copyright is a "bad thing" - it is needed so that people can devote their lives to purely intellectual pursuits and ultimately enrich the body of human culture, however, there is a balance to be struck and as it stands the balance is wildly out of whack).
It's not a good analogy though. If you lease land to an oil company, you're allowing them to use something of yours that is naturally scarce (the land). There's an opportunity cost if someone just builds something on your land - you can't use that land for something else.
Not true at all that you cant use the land for anything..the dipping donkeys take up very little room...my ex uncle in law had a quail farm with 3 dipping donkeys on that took up no room and didn't affect the farm at all...also a small area for the tanks that stored the pumped oil till the truck came and picked it up.
I drive through Luling every few weeks for example and that place is full of dipping donkeys in fields with cows, even the school has a couple!.
The scarcity is irrelevant to the fact it's YOUR property and they need permission from you...as per the copyright property. Scarcity/abundance has nothing to do with the property laws.
If something belongs to you, land or copyright...it's yours and if you pass it on to your kids...it's theirs. Both land and royalties from books/software etc are income based on an inherited 'item'.
The analogy was fine.
To make another flawed analogy, a bricklayer doesn't expect to still be getting paid for the couple of years work his grandfather (who was a master stonemason) did on a public building 80 years ago, so why should the children of authors expect something that a bricklayer didn't,
Because the bricklayer didn't have a royalty/usage agreement with the person who commissioned him to build the wall, if he did and his wall produced income..then he would. He sold the wall outright to the new owner...if it turns out there IS money to be made from the wall..the owner would get the cash, not the bricklayer...just like IP ownership.
Walls tend not to produce income though...books do, land does, etc...
If you sell a game direct as many bedroom programmers did, they don't get royalties either. (The author would be the 'bricklayer')
Comments
The global copyright industry isn't going to roll over because some geeks are having a moan on a retro computing website, so is it really a productive use of your time? :)
I dont know if you are speaking about 8 bits computers here, but if you think that they will ever be a market, you are completely wrong, not even if we all started to code games now there will be a reasonable market.
And Jesus!, dont you think the Spectrum scene is prolific enough?? :O there are more new games than for the C64, MSX, CPC, SNES, NES, Genesis, etc...and most of them with a high quality.
This is a hobby.
It does however support the fact there are indeed reasons to deny distribution.
Yup! I've got a Retro-Duo, plays 8 and 16 bit Nintendo games, it's not that easy to get either in a decent condition for less than a small fortune, but they're still available, and cheap (ish).
Of course Nintendo are apparently not too happy about this machine, but then again they weren't too happy about machines like the DAC back in 1992, or the Toaster NES from recent years. People still buy their games to play on the clones though, and original Nintendo machines are still very easy to get hold of.
Clones like the Toaster NES, in my eyes are just a bit of fun, I'd have one if I had room for it (Of course the DAC was basically just an illegal clone, produced during the machines commercial life :lol:) :D
The Retro-Duo is a covenient machine for a Retro Gamer though, both earlier Nintendo's in one machine. They still run original games though, so you still have to buy them, not that Nintendo will make any money off them anyway, since they're all used. Wonder if Nintendo had a backstock of their old system cartridges in factory new condition if they'd sell em' off super cheap and wreck "L@@K! R@RE'S" value, or if they'd coin in on the whole biz and be like you know what, let's sell a copy of Zelda for $800?
but I doubt Nintendo have / had loads of stock... and the market isn't that big for them to re-issue either.. they want you to buy the new tech *AND* by the old games online via the wii
For serious top-quality software there could be a reasonable niche market even for 8bits. But they'd have to appeal to old and newer tastes. Most new games being some sort of Manic Miner just wouldn't cut it. Even pretty cool games like "Gem Chaser" wouldn't cut it alone. It's nothing that can't be done on most other platforms and it doesn't really have a "Spectrum-only" feel to it either to appeal to nostalgists. The software would have to appeal to the tastes of many veteran gamers as well as the "Just found out about this!" crowd. The software and packaging would have to be taken seriously (The way it's been done with some recent Genesis/Megadrive releases, etc.) Not every 15 year old thinks C64 graphics suck. Many discover and love these things. You don't need everybody to love it you only need enough to make the numbers work.
It's a delicate balance and the research on this would have to be extensive to find out what would work marketing-wise, in theory before taking the risk. Individually, any one computer/console might not be a developer's bread and butter but a software house catering to a few platforms collectively *could* possibly have a chance of sustaining itself and making it worth its while, at least for a while.
I'm not being holier than thou since I've downloaded stuff I shouldn't have in the past but usually I've had to try hard to get it or was given to me discreetly. Most people won't go to certain lengths, not to mention not having the disposition or know how to go about obtaining software, so that they don't have to pay for it. I've worked/work in internet marketing and I know first hand that many people that create and sell products online don't really care very much that their e-books or software are being shared privately within private access because it's limited and sometimes when they're clever they find ways to use this disadvantage to an advantage. What pisses them off are piraters and leechers who talk crap about them on top of it. One snickering, self-aggrandizing, pirating, self-entitled, little kiddy gnat who finds his meaning in life by publicly, widely and openly making the warez easily accessible (and who often likes to brag and talk crap against those whose wares they are distributing whether they be big companies or the little guy slaving away for a long time to create a product and has a hard time paying his bills) can ruin it for everybody because how many people can resist easy pickings?
Oh, and you can blame Google, too.
So, the bigger problem, over whether or not there'd be enough interest to make a venture feasible, or equal problem is the issue of the ease of piracy and illegal distribution. WOS and TZX Vault can respect copyright holders' wishes as much as they'd like, and rightfully so, but there's always stuff like TOSEC and gamers couldn't give two squats that they don't have perfect TZX copies of original tapes so long as games run. People go out of their way to crack new software and buy and build equipment to dump ROMs so scrawny tapes really have no chance.
There's also the argument some make that those who download illegally wouldn't have bought anyway. This isn't always the case. Furthermore, as I alluded to a little earlier, many/most of those who would have bought wouldn't because it's easy for them to get it free. So, I think the biggest snag about unsuccess with producing new software for old platforms isn't so much just the lack of interest but of decadence.
Nostalgia would probably have to play a big role, no doubt, at least at first. I don't deny that. It would probably also be more successful for consoles than old computers, but if budget and time could be appropriated to support these to a degree then they might be worth it. At the end of the day it's business and there'd probably only be enough room for just so many software houses.
If it were viable I'd probably pursue it as part of a team. I'd rather be involved with making games for older platforms than newer ones for the most part to be quite honest, but this would be difficult. Heck, most people can't even keep a band together. Lastly, if any group were to take this on they'd better make friends with as many retro-geek-youtube-reviewing personalities and the like and take advantage of every avenue possible. This retro thing would have to capitalize on anything it can and reach out and cover as many demographics possible even if it means making many addictive, charming or inspiring clever little games, free or low cost, for Android, iPhone, XBox Live, etc., to siphon would-be-but-don't-know interest to its domain, for example.
OK, and the real last part, if possible, you should own part or all publishing rights.
If the research adds up and shows it could be worth pursuing who has the disposition, smarts and drive to actually pursue it? This type of venture would start as a small subset of the "indie-developers" group. How are they doing?
You could instead just buy carts to hold just about every single SNES or Genesis/Megadrive ROM.
is quite correct; it is a strange world where the work of artists is held in such higher regard than the work of labourers and artisans (makes you realise exactly what type of persons copyright protection was laid down in statute for (and by whom)..)
I say it is a strange world, maybe the correct term is now it was a strange world.
These games are effectively free to play now. The IP is still protected to an extent ; they are not protected in entirety, nor can they be (I bet the Stampers don't see a penny of the monies made from retro t-shirts bearing their graphics on sale down at Camden Market).
Disallowing archives like WOS to host their games is at best churlish, in reality, rather pathetic and utterly ineffective and self-defeating.
Not for $126 I won't, when I could buy the pathetically small amount of NES carts I actually like for a fraction of that price. As for the SNES, I want to own those games, not a SNES cart containing a generic chipboard with an SD card plugged into it.
If I was going to use ROMs ZSNES or SNES9X on the PC are perfectly fine for the job.
we used to wind up a friend saying that was his fav game ever ever.
Never played it, but man that looks f**kin' awful :o
looks like an Amiga game! :lol:
I would love to agree with you on that, but I cant :)
I dont think anybody can make a living out of a 8 bit computer anymore, even if the game is the greatest ever for the Spectrum/CPC/C64/MSX...
they would *IF* the IP was good enough to get ported to new machines and that brings it full circle.. ;)
point in question.. tetris.. technically not too tricky to make on any computer
When I said "you" it was just a manner of speech. A lot of people play a crap load of ROMs and like to collect as many as they can whether they play them or not and sit on their hard drives. Your way may be more cost effective for you (now I mean it literally) but it probably isn't for most enthusiasts whose interests aren't pathetically small.
That's beside the point. A SNES ROM on a SNES cartridge running on a SNES is the SNES. A ROM is an image of the cart it isn't the same as an emulator.
It was that great summer of ?86 I first got my hands on ZX-Spectrum. I remember exact smell of that overheating rubber keyboard. One of my best memories ever. Both Speccy by itself and that smell. And my excitement. I have now one rubber 48k and doesn?t smell at all. And also have like 5 units of +2 (mostly black +2B, targeting this platform for all my further software development), plus few light guns (luckily Gatwick Airport security did not rise any alarm when I had them in my luggage).
Ok, but the reason I write this - is discussion about games, legacy, piracy, all that stuff. Back in 1986 - I?ve been behind the Iron Curtain in a funny communistic country called Poland. And we had no intellectual property copyright law - nearly at all.
If you were an artist - some sort of writer or musician - you could publish only thru government-owned companies. If you got published, government became an owner of all rights. With - just a few exceptions - like if you were a musician plus registered member of ZAIKS/BIEM organisation - first you was required to pay a member fee but then - you could get profits from your music/records being distributed or aired over radio stations or a telly (which makes a lot of sense and money for popular musicians and bands). And maybe actors or photographers as well - they still can get some profits from old shows or art they made. In the second case - you haven?t got published at all - you could keep all your rights to yourself, as well as keep your work stacked in your drawer :)
For scientists - similar case happend. Bo te a scientist and do any research you would need to work on a government vacancy, so - yeah, more or less government owned all your work. Apart of being proud of signing your work by your name and getting more or less famous among other scientists. Sometimes most valuable work was stolen from you and your director or supervisor - having higheer rank in communistic party - has put his name on it. Or a lot of other absurdal situations could actually happend.
Now - let?s discuss a computer game software case. There was no sufficient law at all. Arbeit ANY copy of ANY software was LEGAL. That?s a very shocking, but true. First intellectual property law in Poland became in 1992/93 or so - and was a bit doggy - it legalised all copies made so far. Preeetty, preeetty smart, huh? Imagine you?ve got your Windows 3.1 copy on 5 and 1/4 inches discs day before a new law - it was legal. To make a copy day after - it was not legal. BUT - how any could prove you that? No one really could tell - on which exact day you had made your copies. So for next few years - it was another doggy game period. Software was half-legal. The whole matter became important mainly for private business owners and also it helped government companies to pretend they use a legal software and have time to prepare to buy a new, legal one from legal retailers. For regular gamers things started to changed in the end of 90?s, most of them got jobs, and money to buy games, and distribition channel and publishing companies got some stable position on the market. A few pioneering companies from beginning of 90s did not make it, new companies had to start.
Now let?s go back to 1986 and my first ZX-Spectrum experience. After 2 weeks of typing-in some listings, I?ve a got a bootleg tape with two possibly greatest games ever made - COMMANDO and ALIEN 8.
According to Polish law in 1986 - the copy I had was LEGAL. And law from 1992 kept it legal as well. I could also get a ?real?, UK tape with the game - being considered legal in the Western Europe. Anyway - having one, or two, or three legal copies of COMMANDO - say my copies doesn?t work any more. Tapes has got demagnetised, decomposed, decompressed - over period of time. But I had it LEGAL - according to law of the country. And is it NOT legal to make a backup copy of program you had bought already?
This whole post is some coincidence - as my first game ever - COMMANDO - is still kept unavailable to be legally downloaded. So, as I had a legal copy back in 1986 - can I download it now and play without a fear of police knocking to my door? Should I dig into attic and basement storage to find that bloody tape to have prove - look, it?s my legal COMMANDO from 1986 so I can download it now from internet.
I am NOT saying that having a copy of COMMANDO for Speccy in 1986 - means I can download iPhone or Android version now. I?m just saying - there is more behind intellectual property law that it looks like to be - and also having COMMANDO and ALIEN 8 as my very first games in my live - was humbling AWESOME experience that set my love for ZX-SPERTRUM forever :)
Sorry for a long post. It was hard to say what I feel about all this in shorter manner and without mixing in my personal memories.
Hi, Caltex!
Interesting post I need to read again.
Welcome.
Some of you will like my post and others will not!!! My attitude is that I agree that the copyright of Spectrum software should still stand if the owner decides that they don't want to give their work away for free!!!
AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:
Luckily, most software houses and developers have allowed their work to be freely distributed and that is fantastic!!! Sadly, I never got to release a title for the Spectrum but if I had then I would want it to be public domain and would have released the code if I still had it ;) I would risk being sued by my own publisher because I would have given up most if not all of my rights when I took payment and signed it over. There is no way I can give out my Megadrive/Mega-CD and Amiga software as I don't own it - END OF!!! When I see copies of it floating around the internet do I smile :D
If a publisher chooses to deny distribution then you should respect that, there is nothing wrong with putting a case forward but it's their product and they are entitled to do what they want with it. It may be the case that a complex licensing deal came from a third party so the publisher may not have sole rights to the title either... blah blah blah
There may also be a chance that the game is going to be ported to a profitable platform and that could be somebody's bread and butter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The younger generation (our kids) have not automatically earned the right to play Spectrum games for free because they never bought them or contributed to their development (god that sounds harsh!) but I'm sure many of them they will play them at some point in their life ;) This statement excludes passing down your old Speccy and games to your kids!!! - I'm talking about a teenager in 2013 thinking they can download all the *denied* Spectrum titles they want just because they are there for the taking!!!!!!!
FOR DISTRIBUTION:
I bought many Spectrum titles back in the day and although I don't have them anymore, I don't feel guilty one bit for downloading a digital copy from W.O.S ... the publishers have had my cash and probably invested it wisely to make more money if not frittered it all away on lavish lifestyles :) So really, what I am saying is; if you once bought media and maybe binned it, lost it or it broke or you sold it for peanuts and you kept if for a lengthy period of time (not straight back to the shop next day) then I think you have purchased the right to keep a digital copy in this day and age (this goes for music, games, artwork etc.) as you have not stolen a physical item ... you have cloned something you once helped fund development.
I do agree that the creative output of planet earth should be shared once it's reached a certain age but I don't agree with third parties making money off the backs of previous generations!!!
Regards
Companies claiming they games as denied shall sell physical copies of tapes of these games - all that they deny, and give us a chance to buy and play them.
If not, they should not complain if there will be a site offering free downloads.
Copyright law should be changend:
If the sales are smaller than ?600 per year, the title will become public domain.
This statement is slightly true if not a little harsh ;) Many publishers sit on media and it winds me up to the point where I wanna burn them to the ground lolz but it's still their right to deny sale. Maybe I misunderstood your 600 euro comment but you cannot force companies to give software away because it does not sell in large quantities :)
Games are denied for the reason that they will be for sale in some format at some point in the future :D There is no friend in business!!!!!!!
If you want to discuss our Polish matters more deeply, maybe visit www.speccy.pl (unless you are already there :) )
Just one correction - there WAS a copyright law in the 80ties in Poland - Ustawa o prawie autorskim z 1952 r.
http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Ustawa_z_dnia_10_lipca_1952_r._o_prawie_autorskim
Okay, it didn't mention computer programs as you couldn't just buy them in the shop in 1952 ;) but it says about any "scientific or artistic creation stored on any medium". If goverment really wanted, they could use these laws to protect computer programs.
Just nobody cared, communism was collapsing and they had bigger problems then chasing boys copying cassettes.
Sorry mate, but you're talking complete ******** here.
Why the **** should people who had no creative input benefit from a work? If J. K. Rowling wants to leave a legacy for her kids, she should be saving the money she's getting from the books now, not rely on law to provide an income for her kids when she's dead.
Surely those kids should be writing their own books instead of relying on their dead mother's work?
D.
This rule is not for hobbyist programmers who sale small quantitys, but for big companies.
I asked Codemasters for buying "Slicks" on tape. They reply, they do not sell it anymore, but I can buy it second hand. Where anyone offered "Slicks"? It it will surface on eBay, the bidders will turn this 3 pound game into a 300 pound purchase... I spent in the last years over 20,000 Euro on buying Spectrum stuff on eBay, Basar, Willhaben and other platforms and ruined my health. I have many rare and common games. So I do not understand why a company deny the sales of existing games, and deny the distribution.
Do Codies have the plans to rerelease Slicks for Ajfon? or Endroid? or Wii? No, they just sit on their IP. And if anyone has Slicks on Tape and it will have a loading error, what will happen? Nothing! Codemasters won't replace because they do not take responsibility anymore. you tell you, where you can put the tape in (And it will be dark in this place).
Okay they can protect their IP, but for actual and not on obsolete platforms. I'm sure, they won't release any Speccy games, and who of the actual customers would prefer to play their games with outdated graphics more than the improved versions with modern graphics and extended gameplay (except me)?
Copyright should be removed if unused for 10-15 years, because it is unlikely to be used again after that long time. Computer business is a fast business.
I played Sabre Wulf (modern version, I think, Java on my cellular phone or Nintendo DS). What a IP-ripp off!!! - It has nothing to do with the original game anymore. Just a Plattform game with a wolf. This has nothing to do with IP. Why do they not code a Pacman clone with Sabre Wulf or Dizzy Characters? IP rights are perverted.
you might as well apply that to a lot of "muso's" who don't actually have much input to the song itself getting written. Eg.. you could hit a key on a keyboard .. ONE note, and technically you can claim a writing credit as certain producers I have heard of repeatedly do. Get em in a studio without an engineer and or musician and see how good they are ;-) .
they re-issued that dylan album recently just to maintain copyright on it 1000 pressings , the lowest limit to re-new it probably.
by giving your kids a credit, it prolongs the "after death" thing on copyright as well.. and some might be advised to do that for legal reasons.. as remember you are getting double taxed when you inherit stuff (tax has already been paid on it)
there was that Chinese bloke who sold his pharmacy chain / now lives out of the UK specifically to avoid his kids getting hit with the tax, as the government would take half of his multi-million pound fortune.most parents would love to give/leave their kids money if they could, as would parents (mainly dads , I guess here).
if your applying the same to the 10% of the UK rich, what about the f1's bosses daughter amongst others. Look how many that have serious money in the UK got it via family titles etc. even "sell made" people like Branson, starting in a phonebox ? right... but his dad is well off and acted guarantor for some of the initial money no doubt.
Peter Jones has a good idea regarding it, the kids inherit what they earn or put back into society. e.g. if they were a nurse, they'd get a big sum still due to putting something back.
I'll use a Texas analogy. If you own land and the oil company comes along and offers you a 10k a month royalty to put a well on your property (which is fairly common here) would you not expect that royalty to pass on to your kids when you leave them the land?..it's their land then and they get to decide how it's used etc...or would you prefer the oil to go free to 'the people' (or oil company).
Same thing with copyright stuff. If you own the copyright on a book it's fair that when the ownership goes to your kids they continue to get the royalty payments, they own the IP.
Both the oil well and book are income earners.
My only interest that is pathetically small is the 8-bit Nintendo though, and I only used such words as the NES ROMs I like are pretty much a pathetic amount relating to the NES library in general. I've whittled my NES ROMS down to a fraction of what I've ever had on my PC, to the handful of games that I actually enjoy playing on that machine (The rest weren't getting played so why have em' taking up space? Hell I don't even like the majority of what I did have, compulsive downloading I guess? :lol:). I actually deleted Kung Fu (Master) from my PC when I got my hands on a real copy of it as I can now play it on real hardware. Which is admittedly to some people a lot more satisfying than playing on a PC or another console like an XBOX running an emu.
I didn't mean to come off as being agressive or sarcastic, just incase you thought I was having a go :)
It's not really besides the point though, as the point I was making was I'd rather own the actual Nintendo manufactured cartridge, and not something like an Etherdrive, which pretty much is the cart with the generic chipboard and an SD slot for you to put ROMS on it. Even putting a single ROM onto a cartridge isn't really the same as owning an original. I guess my point was yes you are plugging a cart into your machine yes you are playing it on the actual hardware, but no matter how you dress that up you're still putting an illegal copy of the game/games into the machine.
So you're not really adding to your collection at all, you're just spending over $100 to play something you already downloaded for free, on a machine they once belonged on.
That's pretty much why I said I wanted to own the originals, but hey that's just me, I'm not ruling out the use of Etherdrives, or similar cart based devices, I'm just saying they aren't for me (Not for that price anyway, that stands out as more than a luxury item in my eyes).
I'd like an Etherdrive to be able to put fan based games and mods for the machines onto, games that weren't commercially released, but that's such a small handfull of games on the grand scale of things it'd be almost pointless.
it was only released on c64 .. made by the legendary ash & dave... those of gaplus fame :D
( no golden bumper version... sorry)
I always wondered if codies had a locker / safe full of unreleased 8 bit games.
:-D
It's not a good analogy though. If you lease land to an oil company, you're allowing them to use something of yours that is naturally scarce (the land). There's an opportunity cost if someone just builds something on your land - you can't use that land for something else.
On the other hand, data that's easily copied is naturally abundant. If I copy the contents of your hard drive, you have not actually lost anything.
Copyright provides some artificial scarcity so that people who create purely intellectual products can get paid, and this in itself is a good idea. But copyright is supposed to be a tradeoff between the public domain and the author to encourage people to make things of a purely intellectual nature, as it were, whether it be a computer program, writing a story, making music etc., but the intention always was that the public domain become enriched and copyright to provide temporary protection for the authors (but not their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren). After a while, a particularly well known story or music becomes part of our culture. Data (that's easily copied without depriving anyone of the original data) is fundamentally different than a physical item in that you don't lose the use of your original work if someone has a copy, which you do if someone uses your land, your house, your car or your computer.
To make another flawed analogy, a bricklayer doesn't expect to still be getting paid for the couple of years work his grandfather (who was a master stonemason) did on a public building 80 years ago, so why should the children of authors expect something that a bricklayer didn't, despite the fact the stonemason had to employ great artisan skill in his work? Authors etc. are already in the immensely privileged position of being paid for work they did decades ago thanks to artificial legal structures set up - the vast majority of people don't get this privilege.
(I'm not arguing that copyright is a "bad thing" - it is needed so that people can devote their lives to purely intellectual pursuits and ultimately enrich the body of human culture, however, there is a balance to be struck and as it stands the balance is wildly out of whack).
Not true at all that you cant use the land for anything..the dipping donkeys take up very little room...my ex uncle in law had a quail farm with 3 dipping donkeys on that took up no room and didn't affect the farm at all...also a small area for the tanks that stored the pumped oil till the truck came and picked it up.
I drive through Luling every few weeks for example and that place is full of dipping donkeys in fields with cows, even the school has a couple!.
The scarcity is irrelevant to the fact it's YOUR property and they need permission from you...as per the copyright property. Scarcity/abundance has nothing to do with the property laws.
If something belongs to you, land or copyright...it's yours and if you pass it on to your kids...it's theirs. Both land and royalties from books/software etc are income based on an inherited 'item'.
The analogy was fine.
Because the bricklayer didn't have a royalty/usage agreement with the person who commissioned him to build the wall, if he did and his wall produced income..then he would. He sold the wall outright to the new owner...if it turns out there IS money to be made from the wall..the owner would get the cash, not the bricklayer...just like IP ownership.
Walls tend not to produce income though...books do, land does, etc...
If you sell a game direct as many bedroom programmers did, they don't get royalties either. (The author would be the 'bricklayer')