No, I don't think we're entitled to a free copy of Song of the South. Yes, I think it's for the worst that people lost access to a movie and in an alternate reality where Disney could eventually disappear, I wouldn't see it as morally reprehensible if someone uploaded the movie.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nintendo “wins” 12 Millions in lawsuit to ROM site
- Thread starter Pablo Mesa
- Start date
You can definitely find the copies for free, it's hard to fight large scale copyright infringement. But that doesn't mean Disney doesn't or hasn't fought against it when they can.
"Thanks for joining us again on our coverage regarding the debacle of Apple Records suddenly going looney tunes and just deciding to sit on the Beatles catalog while seemingly doing everything in their power to make these classic songs no longer readily purchaseable even to existing customers who already legally own Beatles music but can no longer transfer their songs between devices. Ok, now that we've heard from our panel of artists and tech industry pundits for their opinion lets go to our man on the street for some feedback."
"Hi to all back in the studio, I have someone here by the moniker HeroR who would like to.."
grabs mic "Anybody who listens to a Beatles song in any manner going forward in any other way than direct, immediate payment to Apple Records regardless of whether or not it's songs said person has already legally purchased on possibly multiple occasions is no better than a thief breaking into Marcy's and stealing a sweater!!! Pirates all of 'em!! Lock 'em up!!!"
I'd think less of someone who watched a brand new Disney film via illicit means, than someone who watches one that's no longer available anywhere else, in the same way that I'd think it completely unacceptable for someone to download BOTW to play on PC, whereas someone downloading Lufia 2 I don't really think is awful
User Banned (3 days): Advocating Piracy
No we are not entitled to it, but I applaud anyone who has a backed up copy and uploads it for anyone to enjoy.
Disney wants to let something become abandonware that their choice, just don't start bitching about it when people inevitably start uploading it everywhere.
This is why I am completely behind people who upload old games from systems we have no way to get ourselves anymore. Nintendo wants to let GBA games become vaporware? Fine. I have no sympathy for them now that GBA ROMs are everywhere on the internet to download.
And your point? You're still not entitled to goods if the seller for whatever reason decides to not or stopped selling it. Especially since Nintendo's version of the Beetles, namely Super Mario Brothers and all its game, are accessible several legal ways without stealing it.
So yeah, your example is absolute bullshit.
This is where I stand. And I feel the need to repeat - I keep ancient systems and go out of my way to buy my retro games myself. I'm looking for Tomb Raider: The Prophecy at the moment :P
Perhaps, but you then can't turn around and cry when Disney sued those who upload their stuff illegally and forced some of them to file bankrupting. You're not entitled to someone else's goods.
That's a fine stance, I'm just saying that no one would argue that Disney isn't justified in trying to stop the illegal distribution of their product, and the same logic should apply to Nintendo.
If the sites were more about providing access to long lost ROMs that are inaccessible anywhere I could muster sympathy but because it's more likely about the 56735454123145564534534543545 versions of SMB3 or other multi million sellers that you can buy on nearly a half dozen platform if convenience was an issue I fail to muster even a modicum of a hint of a bad feeling about this.
After all the BS about "Nintendo is selling you ROM they downloaded from the internet", I get the impression any hint of a justification is enough for some to claim paying anything is too expensive.
After all the BS about "Nintendo is selling you ROM they downloaded from the internet", I get the impression any hint of a justification is enough for some to claim paying anything is too expensive.
Sure I can. Not everything has to be black and white. I have a hard line stance of support for keeping games alive and available to everyone when the publisher decides they don't want to provide any other means to play it.
I understand how and why some people feel different and that is okay. This is just my opinion.
Yeah, the rights holder are always entitled to do whatever they like with regards to their own IP, I'm not disputing that
My personal view is that piracy will always exist where there is demand that is not being met. and until that demand is met, pirates will find a way, no matter how many sites you shut down, so since it's going to exist anyway, why not harness that demand and actually sell the games on a modern platform?
No one is entitled to these games, but people will take them anyway. We can agree they're in the wrong all we want, but at the end of the day, they'll get a hold of the games they want.
I'd love to play a lot of these classics, but I'm left waiting for them to come out on Switch, if they ever will, and that sucks, because the pirates win, and we lose
Full ROM set with games from every region including rare stuff like Deae Tonosama Appare Ichiban.
I repeat there are much more rare videogames to collect for (or preserve) than SNES roms of commercial games ...
Yeah, I meant prototypes in general.
I believe it's expensive, I don't collect protos but I have a good knowledge about old unreleased games on old consoles.
When you collect stuff that isn't widely available you are bound to pay high prices or exchange with an equally rare item.
Last edited:
Nintendo is probably one of the last one to not want to keep their games available.
Their Switch offering is proof of that, they're perfectly happy to provide them for free as long as it serves a strategic purpose.
they understand the value of their backcatalog and use it as tools.
There's a reason they basically provided 30c WiiU versions for 6 months during the early 2013 drought.
They literally had nothing else to offer so they deeply discounted their stuffs to entice adoption.
You act like Nintendo don't have these games anymore and these heck ROM are the last copies.
Nintendo isn't seeing any money or benefit if someone buys a Virtual Boy second hand or downloads the ROMs for it, because they have not preserved it themselves or made its software available for purchase. I agree piracy hurts the industry for titles that are available for purchase, and isn't a good way to preserve games. In many cases though, it is the only way some games are being historically preserved.
Nintendo is also legally within their right to never sell, and prevent any distribution, of their classic games ever again. It's unfortunate to see their history become abandonware, but I suppose users here are all for that.
Now that Nintendo offers NES games, it would be wrong to download NES ROMs (at least the ones that Nintendo offers) according to my philosophy on this matter. GB/GBC/GBA games on the other hand is different. If I want to play Fire Red, I have no avenue to purchase a copy legally to play from Nintendo (just as an example, I still have my physical copies of both Kanto remakes).
Basically my stance boils down to: If the maker/publisher doesn't offer a legal way to purchase the product, it SHOULD be fair game. I also support being able to download copies that you did purchase legally. For archival or being able to play on a system (such as Android or PC) that your hard copy doesn't support.
Obviously the above is not the case in many countries and if a game becomes available eventually, I think you should purchase it.
If you wanna play Pokémon, it's The Pokémon Company you have to deal with.
Nintendo may be willing to give Pkmn for free, if TPC says no that's that.
THEY are the Disney of the gaming world.
And pkmn, really?
They usually sell minimum 10M copies, it shouldn't be a problem to track a copy.
If anything by law of numbers they're literally the easiest GBA games to find.
If it's preservation that's the issue, don't worry we're going to have copies till we no longer have people alive to buy them.
Nobody here is talking about being entitled to anything but keep repeating yourself, ignoring what's really being discusssed and moving the goalposts. And your sweater thief comparison is really silly and lacks zero nuance.
Not to mention, given all of Gen 1 and Gen 2 are available for purchase digitally, it's not out of the question that they'll get around to releasing Gen 3/the Gen 1 remakes one way or the other.
That is really one sided. Imagine you create something and don't want to publish it for whatever stupid reason. Be it a painting, a book or a video game. Then people should legally be entitled to take it?
Nintendo throwing its long time Virtual Console customers under the bus with Switch online and not offering a proper and transferrable account solution for twelve years of classic game purchases is a bad look. Not saying I'm by any means entitled to transfer any of my Virtual Console purchases to my Switch, it's just IMO a really poor way for Nintendo to treat its customers. Anybody is free to think otherwise of course, but a lot of folks here don't like it and aren't as willing as some here to do the mental gymnastics it takes to defend the extremely inconsistent way Nintendo handles its back catalog every gen.
Last edited:
Nah, they offered that for Wii/WiiU transition, the competition offered jackshit and got rewarded for it.
Next gen will be the same, no one bitched about ps3 games not being accessible on ps4 so there's no wonder wiiu games aren't available on switch.
Similarly your purchases on ps4 will likely not transfer to ps5.
It's the nature of the digital game ownership system we have.
If anything there is a higher likelihood that the Nintendo VC on Switch is going to be transferable going forward.
I still have every virtual console game I've purchased though. No one ever promised you were buying those games for very future platform.
Funnily enough when they allowed people to transfer the licenses and provided a cheap upgrade path to the new part of the UI, people complained.
Interestingly WiiVC is probably the only to properly play some 50Hz version of some games.
Right, it's great they allowed transferring VC from Wii to Wii U. Even if it wasn't possible to transfer VC to Switch in some way they could have made the online service a lot more attractive to loyal VC customers by offering a much larger selection of titles right off the bat. I just am sick and tired of their awful drip model that they do every gen.
I don't begrudge them for exercising their right to go after rom sites. But how they handle their VC related releases goes hand in hand with the topic of whether or not Nintendo is both promoting classic game preservation by also taking better advantage of their classic titles in a more robust way.
The fact Nintendo doesn't have their entire first party NES and SNES library on the switch for purchase and download is why these ROM site exist
I definitely appreciate that and it's why I still have my Wii U hooked up. That said I probably was never promised that I could carry over all my music to my other IOS devices but it sure is nice and convenient I can do so.
Used copies for out of print games gives nothing to the devs/publisher (unlike games that are still sold, in which used game sales help to fuel new game sales).
I would urge people to buy used anyways just to support all the mom and pop retro game store around (although this could be impossible depending on location).
Entitled not really. Allowed? Sure. (Painting no, idk how that would even work with there only being one copy. Books and games can be uploaded digitally)
I'm really not going to change my stance on this.
Actually, I think the even more hilarious things is that people spent over a decade complaining about Nintendo "charging them $5 to play Super Mario Bros" and said Nintendo should just do a Netflix thing. Now that Nintendo is doing that (in an admittedly half-assed way in regards to its catalog), people are now demanding Nintendo just let them buy those games again.
I'm off 2 minds for the drip model.
On 1 hand it's better to have everything right off the bat, on the other hand it allowed me to just focus on Mario&Yoshi that I actually would never have touched otherwise.
Like I have something like 5 or 6 different ways to play Zelda 1 and I could give less of a shit about another one.
For me it's kinda like in Mario Maker, between the get everything 1st or pace yourself to appreciate everything there is to offer.
At least this time they're not nickel and dimming for every single releases.
I mean what the fuck were you going to do in a month with Solomon's Key, Zelda and Mario Gold on WiiU? I'm not going to pay extra for that shit.
At least this time I can try one exactly once and then forget it ever existed.
I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm saying it's better.
Believe me no one is releasing back catalog for anything but extra cash, I don't think there's any project that's dependent on old vc releases.
They can greenlit new installments if the backcatalog is doing exceptionally well (sin&punishment) but that's about it.
For pkmn? the thing sell for 10M minimun on each new entry, don't worry you choosing to skip on USUM had no impact on their roadmap.
I guess they should have done both at the same time, Sony provided Now service along with proper releases after all.
Let people choose.
It is entitled to think that it's okay to pirate or Nintendo had it coming if they're not selling goods. While my sweater example wasn't the best, the point remains. If the seller doesn't want to sell something, that doesn't give you the right to break into the store and take it by force. And your Apple and Beetle example wasn't the best either since as I pointed out, Nintendo's version of the Beetles can be bought legally in several different ways. So it isn't like them closing down this site makes you lose access to buying Super Mario Brothers or Zelda.
And I'm not ignoring anything. People are trying to justify pirating game under the guise of 'preservation'.
Because they don't want random assholes on the internet make a profit off their IP? Sure thing.
You are talking about a gaming company, not Amazon. Calm down with your revoluzzer-attitude lol. Pirating roms is most laughable form of fighting against a company I've ever seen. But whatever makes you sleep at night I guess.
Yeah, how could they.
Its kinda wild that the SNES Classic's big gimmick is having FX chip games and it still doesnt have stunt race FX. Among other obvious choices missing like Pilotwings. Like good lord.
These rom sites existed before the Switch. Stop making up bullshit excuses please. The 3DS and Wii U had fantastic virtual console support.
These rom sites exist and existed because people love to pirate shit and some preservationist oddballs.
Yes how dare they protect their IP. So how do you play their games ?
I don't think you understood what I wrote, or I'm just not understanding your reply. Have no idea what your referring too or what US/UM has to do with this (these games are still in print, of course someone shouldn't pirate them)
I'll add my two cents.
First of all no I don't advocate piracy and everyone who works on something and sells it should get paid. But I also believe that laws, which are very important for human society to function peacefully, should only be 99% absolute and not 100%, to put it short never black or white. The remaining 1% should always be human common-sense. In an ideal world, all living things shouldn't have to fear death and live a peaceful life but of course we don't live in such an utopia and everyone has to see how they sustain their living though even then there should be cases where common sense rules.
Capitalism isn't an inherently natural thing, it's a concept we humans invented and since we humans are imperfect so is capitalism, copyright and the laws we make. Millions of people break laws every day, some are single people, others are multi-million dollar corporations, some do it knowingly and some unknowingly. To not be aware of a law shouldn't give someone a free pass but what should always be kept in mind is human common sense.
I want to list a few scenarios to depict what I mean with "common-sense".
Scenario 1:
Person downloads a game that is currently on sale just because they can.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? Absolutely!
Scenario 2:
Person downloads an old SNES game that is currently not legally sold by any means aside from buying it used.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? That's already a bit harder and you have to differentiate. No matter if the person downloads the game or buys it used, the original developers and license-holders don't see a single cent either way. Of course it devalues the used copies that are in existence but I would argue from a moral standpoint the people that actively seek out to buy used copies value games and know they could simply download it but don't. On the other hand people who download the game to get a quick fix of a game from their childhood wouldn't have sought out a used copy anyway and rather just not play it so the value loss is just theoretical. In the same way you can't equal a download to a lost sale.
Scenario 3:
Person wants to play an old game they own on an emulator and has a physical copy but no easy means to dump it so they are lazy and download the game.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? No in my opinion that's not morally wrong because data is an infinite resource and the data that ends up on a person's storage-medium will be a 1:1 identical copy no matter if downloaded or dumped. No developer or license-holder gets hurt, damaged or loses money.
Scenario 4:
A kid downloads a popular game so they can play it with all the others kids at school and the parents have no money to buy the game and/or system because they already work as much as humanly possibly and still can barely afford anything.
Did the kid break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? That depends on who you ask, some will say yes, some will say no. Our world is inherently unfair and some people can't afford things others can, that's the reality of things. But I'll say if I would be the developer and license-holder of said game and my lawyers would present me this singular case I would go as far and gift the kid a copy and maybe even the system. I can't make money of people who have none anyway but I can try to make the life of people better and who knows, maybe the kid will have luck in life and manage to get out of the mess and buy all their games in the future when their economic situation allows it.
I don't want to say it's okay for poor people to willy-nilly break laws but that's why I said laws should always be seen under the view of common-sense. Nobody would have gained anything if the kid and its parents would have been punished in this case. We shouldn't forget that "law" isn't necessarily a good thing. In human history it was legally allowed to hold slaves by law at some points in time and I think we can all agree that was horrible and absolutely subhuman. We should focus to fix the flaws in our society and maybe also finally adapt proper copyright laws that fit the current times instead of allowing them to be exploited by giant corporations to get richer and richer because the law favors them.
First of all no I don't advocate piracy and everyone who works on something and sells it should get paid. But I also believe that laws, which are very important for human society to function peacefully, should only be 99% absolute and not 100%, to put it short never black or white. The remaining 1% should always be human common-sense. In an ideal world, all living things shouldn't have to fear death and live a peaceful life but of course we don't live in such an utopia and everyone has to see how they sustain their living though even then there should be cases where common sense rules.
Capitalism isn't an inherently natural thing, it's a concept we humans invented and since we humans are imperfect so is capitalism, copyright and the laws we make. Millions of people break laws every day, some are single people, others are multi-million dollar corporations, some do it knowingly and some unknowingly. To not be aware of a law shouldn't give someone a free pass but what should always be kept in mind is human common sense.
I want to list a few scenarios to depict what I mean with "common-sense".
Scenario 1:
Person downloads a game that is currently on sale just because they can.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? Absolutely!
Scenario 2:
Person downloads an old SNES game that is currently not legally sold by any means aside from buying it used.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? That's already a bit harder and you have to differentiate. No matter if the person downloads the game or buys it used, the original developers and license-holders don't see a single cent either way. Of course it devalues the used copies that are in existence but I would argue from a moral standpoint the people that actively seek out to buy used copies value games and know they could simply download it but don't. On the other hand people who download the game to get a quick fix of a game from their childhood wouldn't have sought out a used copy anyway and rather just not play it so the value loss is just theoretical. In the same way you can't equal a download to a lost sale.
Scenario 3:
Person wants to play an old game they own on an emulator and has a physical copy but no easy means to dump it so they are lazy and download the game.
Did the person break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? No in my opinion that's not morally wrong because data is an infinite resource and the data that ends up on a person's storage-medium will be a 1:1 identical copy no matter if downloaded or dumped. No developer or license-holder gets hurt, damaged or loses money.
Scenario 4:
A kid downloads a popular game so they can play it with all the others kids at school and the parents have no money to buy the game and/or system because they already work as much as humanly possibly and still can barely afford anything.
Did the kid break the law? Absolutely!
Is it morally wrong what they did? That depends on who you ask, some will say yes, some will say no. Our world is inherently unfair and some people can't afford things others can, that's the reality of things. But I'll say if I would be the developer and license-holder of said game and my lawyers would present me this singular case I would go as far and gift the kid a copy and maybe even the system. I can't make money of people who have none anyway but I can try to make the life of people better and who knows, maybe the kid will have luck in life and manage to get out of the mess and buy all their games in the future when their economic situation allows it.
I don't want to say it's okay for poor people to willy-nilly break laws but that's why I said laws should always be seen under the view of common-sense. Nobody would have gained anything if the kid and its parents would have been punished in this case. We shouldn't forget that "law" isn't necessarily a good thing. In human history it was legally allowed to hold slaves by law at some points in time and I think we can all agree that was horrible and absolutely subhuman. We should focus to fix the flaws in our society and maybe also finally adapt proper copyright laws that fit the current times instead of allowing them to be exploited by giant corporations to get richer and richer because the law favors them.
But let's say you do download the ROM and play the game you've been wanting to play. 6 months later the maker releases it for sale. Are you going to buy the game, having just played the heck out of it? Unlikely, your desire has been sated. So your downloading of the ROM at this point has cost the maker money. This is actually one of the big reasons the Virtual Console hasn't been the big moneymaker Nintendo expected it to be, because ROMs are so easy to find, people don't have that unfulfilled desire to play the retro games.
Nintendo going after the biggest, easiest-to-find ROM sites is an attempt to make it so random Joe will find it too difficult to do so - of course people who really want to will be able to find them.
Last edited:
I'm saying for Pokemon, you buying rereleases or old used games changes nothing as far as GameFreak is concerned.
Heck you buying USUM is going to have more of an impact on the release roadmap of Pkmn than buying a license for FireRed (if it was available) or Yellow or Gold.
Yes, no question. I'd love having a game I loved on my current system. Which is the reason why I've bought the same freaking games on Wii, WiiU, and 3DS I guess.