Nintendo Files Lawsuit Against ROM Website Offering Nearly 300,000 Switch Downloads

Good, take em all down. That's just stealing.

And yes, I understand that there's a difference between these rom sites and having your own roms made yourself.

Um.... 300k Switch downloads? Riiight.... “Somethings f***y...”

@ComposedJam That's the kind of entitlement that is getting people in trouble in the first place though. No one deserves a game just because they can't get it anymore.

i'm all for emulation/roms, but the second you start charging for it outside of like...accepting donations with no benefit to the user, it's kind of hard to say you're not in the wrong

@Kalmaro
It's not like Nintendo is opening the floodgates on classic games to sell. Would it hurt them to help alleviate piracy by making their entire library of games open for purchase?

@Kalmaro lets go plundering Nintendo’s booty. Argh.

@personauser93 No, no touching the booty.

@GameOtaku It would be FABULOUS if they did!

However, that's thier decision. If they don't want to release something yet, that's all there is to it. That doesn't suddenly mean that it's okay to steal.

@Kalmaro

As someone who cares about preserving gaming history and is a huge retro enthusiast, I can no longer agree with you here. Believe me, I used to be adamantly against emulation, but there are so many games you just can't buy anymore. If you can, it's from third party vendors who had no hand in developing/publishing these games who charge ridiculous amounts of money. I understand Nintendo wanting to protect their I.P, and I can't say that it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. But as a videogame fan, especially of Nintendo and retro games, it'll be a sad day when there's no way to play some of these old school gems. Emulating games these companies still sell is totally wrong, but you aren't harming anyone by downloading an English translated copy of Magical Pop'n.

@Spudtendo As someone who has standards, I can't agree with you. Just because one wants to do something, does not suddenly make it okay.

I'm all for preserving game history too, but not at the risk of breaking rules. You show me where it's written that we HAVE to preserve he history and I'll back down. Until then, just wanting something is not enough.

I'm a videogame fan too, as such, I respect a game company's decision to do what they want with their stuff.

And we will see all the rest quickly close their sites down before they become the next Nintendo meal!

They Should Remove The Website Entierly

@Kalmaro

So I don't have standards because I like to play videogames? Forgive me for thinking you could be polite in a discussion. I'll stoop to your level: You're a boy scout and you need a wedgie.

@Spudtendo
If i cannot play some games due to not available anymore even on Ebay, i just let them go, moving on and play other games that still available.

@Spudtendo When did I ever say you don't have standards because you like to play games? You're just reading what you want. I specifically said:

"just because one wants to do something, does not suddenly make it okay."

Why on earth would I even be here if didn't like games? Good grief.

@Kalmaro to say "as someone who has standards" is to imply the other person doesn't, c'mon now

@somebread Yes, and if you look at the context, I'm talking about just doing what you want because you feel like it. You can't just take one sentence out of an entire reply and twist it the way you want.

That just ends up making you look bad.

@somebread

I don't think English is his first language.

And people wonder why they stomp out all ROM sites. Is it good? No, but look at how the bad apples ruin the bunch.

Good on you, Nintendo.

@JR150

Yeah, I can understand why Nintendo would look at these guys and get upset with the idea of rom sites. Selling games that they themselves are selling is just wrong.

@Spudtendo Oh I believe my grasp on it is perfectly fine. Yours seems suspect though, that or you just don't feel like reading everything people have to say.

@Kalmaro it was pretty blatant what you were inferring with your first sentence. Don't try and Trump this around.

In the end, I'm not sure how much good this will do but here's hoping we can get rid of these sites just blatantly stealing from Nintendo.

It's one thing to preserve abandonware that is no longer obtainable, but let's keep on track here. Nintendo is going after a site offering pirated versions of games for current Nintendo hardware. Those games are likely to be the farthest thing from abandonware. The companies that made those games still exist and hold trademarks for those games and characters making it 100% illegal to redistribute that way. I'm not going to judge people for a little yar har fiddle dee dee, but Nintendo does have every legal right to go after sites like that and should do so. If those sites only stuck to preserving true abandonware instead of enabling piracy then they'd be in the clear. That distinction is what this all boils down to.

@Kalmaro Let's reword what you said into wha you actually mean then:

"Just because someone wants to preserve games that will vanish into obscurity because no other alternatives will be legally given, doesn't mean it's okay."

You talk about breaking rules as if they're this holy grail of morality, but it's technically the rules that aren't okay. If you respect developers, then you should be for preserving their software where no one else has bothered.

Let's not actually forget that Nintendo has literally used pirated roms to sell back to us. I'm NOT saying they have no right to do this, but I'm saying that Nintendo has literally needed to rely on these sites themselves sometimes.

One day, a niche title is going to become 100% unplayable for anyone anymore because not only will the cartridge have decayed, but the software will have become totally unavailable online too, making it difficult for even the devs to get a hold of.

You might not think it happens, but literally devs themselves are capable of losing the source code to their games. Once that's gone, it becomes ectremely tricky to support a games existence.

However, if you're someone who only play games like Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, etc, I can understand why this issue would be one you wouldn't care about at all.

@Spudtendo Yes, because I REALLY believe people who like games don't have standards. Okay, you got me.

It couldn't possibly be that I disagreed with you justifying rom sites for game preservation. Nope, I just hate gamers.

@DonSerrot

And to be fair, I completely agree with Nintendo cracking down on sites like this. I was only defending what you'd call abandonware, but apparently it can only be all or nothing with Kalmaro.

Eh, I sit in the grey area of ‘pretty culpable since I want to play translated games’ yet generally accept that it’s a ‘Bad Thing To Do’. However, there’s a difference between preserving abandonware and selling access to current-gen games. For once, i’m on Nintendo’s side on something like this.

"If you respect developers, then you should be for preserving their software where no one else has bothered."

Just the opposite, since it's their property, if they don't want something to be preserved, I respect their decision. That's not mine to make for them. There's nothing saying that all games must be preserved so what right do I have to take their property?

I'm aware of the thing about Nintendo selling back a rom. I heard about it anyway. As it's technically their rom, I never really said much about it.

Game devs losing their games is horrible and I do feel for them, but that's on them for not taking precautions. It stinks but these things happen. Who doesn't make backups?

Now, if these same devs asked the gamers to get the source code back to them, now we're talking about something different.

@Spudtendo Yes, I have standards when it comes to properties owned by other people. About the only time I can make an exception is when it's a game that no one actually owns anymore. Those are rare cases though.

My entire comment to you earlier was concerning games still in possession of other companies.

@Kalmaro Calling software piracy "stealing" hurts everyone in the interest of comprehending what "standards" are. Copying software is not stealing. Stealing deprives an owner of possession. People who revise and destroy history exist, and in places of power too. It's a political game which puts itself above "morality". This is not a conversation about what is right.

If I, without permission, download copyrighted plans and 3D print a car, will people like you call it grandtheft auto?

@Kalmaro no there's not.

@Kalmaro Alright, something you seem to be under the impression of is that this is only effecting Nintendo-made games. This effects games ON Nintendo systems, meaning that these are decisions being made for other devs who aren't actually present to make a choice at all.

"Oh, Sam isn't here to eat his birthday cake? Well, I'm sure he doesn't want it to be preserved so it's fine if we eat it."

If your justice means erasing something from history just because someone wasn't there to say no, then maybe think about whether just because something is legally right, makes it morally right.

Personally, if I were a game dev, as long as my game was no longer legally accessible, I'd be over the moon that people were at least keeping my game alive and enjoying it.

If all of a sudden, that game became available through an online store, of course I'd then expect people to buy it. People who steal will continue to steal, but people who want something to grow and flourish will support it wherever they can.

I will always prefer to play a game in the most official way possible but I will 100% defend the existence of a rom for a game that can be found nowhere else.

@Kyranosaurus If you, as a game dev, told people that you'd have no problem with people preserving your game then okay, we don't have a disagreement there.

My issue is with this idea that we HAVE to preserve all game and, therefore, have a right to do whatever we want provided that game history is saved. There's nothing saying we have to preserve everything so I don't see how people justify themselves.

I never said that I want anything erased, I'd loved for all devs to say they want their stuff preserved, but again, that's up to them to decide.

@andjahiam You'll have to be more specific

@tabzer You are gaining possession of something that is not your and you do not have permission to have.

If I overheard an idea you had and used that to make a profit before you did... I technically did not pluck the idea you had from your head, it's still there.

However, you'd still be correct in saying that I stole your idea and you'd have every right to be upset.

If you stole plans to make a car, I'd say you stole the plans, not the car itself.

Good good and good take them all down !!!!

Insert Michael Jackson eating popcorn GIF

@Kalmaro That's all very well and good that you want to hear a game dev say they want preservation, but you're ignoring the issues with assuming that's how easy it is.

There is no rule full-stop to say that human history in general should be preserved, yet it's something we try our hardest to do anyway.
Some ancient cutlery once belonged to SOMEONE, but they're no longer with us. Did they give us permission to preserve it in a museum? Absolutely not.

Gaming history is the same. Believe it or not but this doesn't just come down to "backups".
Some companies who made games for the NES and SNES no longer actually exist. The teams of devs who worked on said game are either bankrupt or perhaps even dead with no other rights holder.

The only thing you seem to be keeping in mind is the people who are present to make those decisions.
If your issue with preservation is that we shouldn't HAVE to preserve it, then let me ask you what's actually WRONG with preserving it.

If your answer is just going to be "no one said yes", then please think long and hard if you actually believe in everything you're saying or if that's just something a mindless fan would echo for Nintendo's sake of sounding good. If that's your answer then it literally argues the very opposite against your case with the same logic.

@Kalmaro Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently. The saying, "you stole my idea" comes from the understanding that the idea itself was not stolen, but that the potential rewards and/or recognition have been. While the idea cannot actually be stolen, it is a SAYING that communicates the feeling of having had something inappropriately taken away in respect to the idea. People copy ideas all the time. Only when there are rewards at stake, do people get politically and legally competitive about it. The term "stealing" underlines the suffering caused.

Don't redefine theft to benefit your own sense of moral superiority. If you want to cheerlead piracy sites being taken down, you can do it without "stealing" the English language.

Wow, they're certainly not... subtle about what they do.

This is an obvious case of piracy that could easily be harmful to Nintendo and other developers releasing games on the system. Sue em to hell and back.

As to the broader question of emulation... it seems a bit suspect to label the distribution of ROMs as "stealing" when there's no legal recourse for obtaining said games besides purchasing hard copies from the second-hand market.

Piracy is only really morally objectionable because it's presumed that the creator and initial distributor of the game is being denied compensation for their efforts. This isn't the case when a game is out of print and consumers have no legal recourse for obtaining a playable copy that directly benefits the original publisher, though. Pirating such games hurts nobody.

A copy of data isn't theft.

@ComposedJam which games published by Nintendo cannot be purchased in any form of virtual console or re release today?

@EmmatheBest Err...

"Nintendo's crackdown on piracy continues, with its American branch filing a lawsuit against the owner of a website called RomUniverse on 10th September."

@JamesJose7 how about the entire N64DD library

@Kyranosaurus
“Let's not actually forget that Nintendo has literally used pirated roms to sell back to us. I'm NOT saying they have no right to do this, but I'm saying that Nintendo has literally needed to rely on these sites themselves sometimes.”
Total urban myth
https://youtu.be/YCro3FHKdHA
@GameOtaku
Not saying that Nintendo ever had an even close to full library on any VC, but there were still people downloading NES, SNES, N64, etc. games back when the Wii Virtual Console was still adding games.

And the most downloaded games on ROM sites are usually the ones that have been rereleased multiple times (the original SMB, DKC, SM64 etc.). Though I do see some value for the more obscure games that will likely never be rereleased, because let’s be honest it’d be almost impossible to legally digitally rerelease every game made for a successful console. Microsoft is attempting to get every game released on the XBOX and the XBOX 360 to be digitally purchasable and they’re still pretty far off from reaching that goal.

Get lost Nintendo 🙄

@Kalmaro lol you still arguing this? Only prob is selling the roms. Sorry Nintendo is always 2 steps behind with this. 3D Excitebike can't even upload tracks and the remake is only wiiware. 3ds dying means they will shut down stuff like Mario vs donkey Kong tipping stars for level uploads too. If people make a private server I'll happily enjoy it, much like phantasy star online.
We're also at an age where game developers can pull their digital stuff and nobody owns anything so whoever bought is stuck unless they have digitally stored it somewhere.

@Kyranosaurus the developers of vintage software never had any rights to the games they created. They will never get any money for those games. All that resides with the publisher who is only the investor and copyright holder. So there’s a disconnect between the creation and human achievement of making a game and the control and then the destiny of that achievement. When does a game stop being a product and exist as human achievement? When the system of sales and copyrights of that civilization no longer exists and it’s found as a relic? Surely it’s before then. A video game publisher will never exist to accommodate human achievement, it’s strictly business operations and nothing further, nothing.

Close one and 10 more will open. Nintendo will always lose. Just give up already

@Ralizah Crap, you're right. I read too fast, and force of habit in reaction to other NL piracy articles. Carry on...

Some of y’all need to chill. Look, if you’re all for piracy then just do it. But don’t try to dress it up as some way that you personally are “preserving history” or that you have a right to it. Just do what you will and justify it to yourself. The same sentiment goes for the opposition. Otherwise we just rehash the same anachronisms every time there’s an article vaguely related to the topic, in which case there’s no winners. Just a bunch of keyboards and screens with spittle all over them, while our games are going unplayed.

Good! Sue them all, Nintendo!!!

I'm not going to debate the legality or morality of emulating retro games, I certainly don't approve of the piracy of games that can still be purchased and obtained legally and morally.

Having said that, if I want to play BS Zelda Ancient Stone Tablets, I see this as victimless. Nintendo are not in anyway making money off of that game and emulating it is not taking money from developers pockets.

In my opinion, as long as there are no official ways to purchase a game which still supports it's publishers and developers, then I have no problem with it.

If anyone calls me "entitled" because I wish to play a game that looks like a fun game to play, I would like to point out that nobody NEEDS to play any games. We all play games because we want to.

@H_Hunter the more to open, the more for Nintendo to sue! Nintendo will always win! Hackers and thieves can fu!! Off already!!!

It seems like some of you sticking up for pirating someone else's work didn't even read the article. This website that got taken down was charging $30 for membership and unlimited downloads every year. That's not only illegally copying someone else's work and distributing it, that's literally profiting off of stolen goods. And this is not to mention any potential ad revenue from click through ads and ad impressions. Some of you need to grow up and realize that the trafficking of stolen roms for money isn't about "preserving history", it's about illegally stealing the work of others and profiting off of it. If any of you ever create anything and have it stolen while someone else profits off of it then you may have a different opinion about someone else "preserving the history" of your work while you get paid ZERO.

1. Even if some of the cost is used to maintain the rom servers, this is not a thing to do towards games that are currently available to be paid for.

2. Since the Switch got hacked so quickly I've been disappointed in Nintendo for not spending more on security. Sure the exploit was on nvidia's side, but that doesn't leave Nintendo without any responsibility. Just look at the other companies, there's hardly as much talk about hacking them because either it's too hard for the average user, or it doesn't open many possibilities. Switch hacking, however, gives people many possibilities that were strangely omitted by Nintendo, and almost everyone can do it. Actually, all consoles are made from components from other companies. Cpu from AMD? GPU from Nvidia/AMD? Sure, it's a bit different this time since the whole console (basically an Nvidia Shield) was delivered from Nvidia, but there's nothing saying Nintendo could've spent more to ensure the systems security was better.

The other companies have been able to drive users away from hacking their systems by offering a good online service, as well. Some features are clearly lacking from Nintendo's side, though I do applaud them for the VC features like online play.

Also, if we shouldn't think we have a need to preserve things, then let's just stop and watch rhinos go extinct within the next 50 years (probably a lot sooner). The rhinos never told us they wanted to be preserved so why should we make sure they still exist for their specie's sake and for our own and our future generations' sakes. Preservation is such a bad thing, no? What if I really wanted to experience Chrono Cross in my life, but I never could because it never got a rerelease/remake and maybe by the time it did let's say in 10 years I had already died in an accident, then oh well. Too bad. And yes, I am aware that certain humans are responsible for killing too many rhinos. My point is an argument towards the "preservation is never needed" argument above.

@Kalmaro Yikes, this is such a bad take. The whole reason pirating a game is bad is ONLY if it causes financial damages to the copyright owners. If there are no damages as a result of you downloading something, then it's not piracy. That being said, there are some games that are literally unplayable with the exception of emulation. Downloading a copy of say, Cybattler, an old arcade shooter, isn't harming anybody because nobody is selling the game anymore or manufacturing it. Obviously, pirating a copy of Mario Odyssey is bad, because Nintendo is still selling it. It's a vast chasm of a difference. Financial damage is ALWAYS associated with pirating, UNLESS the copyright holder no longer holds the rights for whatever reason. Then it becomes public domain.

Again, I'm not condoning downloading things as a way to circumvent paying for them. I'm condoning downloads of roms ONLY if you aren't causing someone financial damages and if you are doing it for some kind of preservation purpose.

@GameOtaku Nintendo doesn't own ALL 800+ games in the NES library. Any third-party game (and there are many and yes people enjoy playing them) are owned by the IP holder. Who owns what can get complicated with developers and publishers going under, not to mention licensing for any sports games that have references to IRL teams and players, and games that are based on a movie or TV show.

@Bomberman64 Are you serious? No human being or corporation spent their own money and capital to produce rhinos and sell them to the public to provide financial returns for their investors. Rhinos are a naturally occurring species on the planet Earth, not a product that was created by a company to sell to consumers.

Video games are tangible goods that were created by a person or company for the express purpose of being sold to the public to generate a financial return for the owners of that company. Even if the video game is no longer being sold or produced, the ownership rights to that property is still either retained by the company who created it, or the ownership rights have been passed down to whatever company or entity that either bought out the original company, or who literally bought the rights to the games themselves. Even the licensing rights to old games are owned by SOMEONE, so anybody who is copying them without consent of the owner is STEALING. Forgive me for saying, but your comparison is so completely illogical to the point that it literally makes no sense at all.

@HobbitGamer A great way not to argue is to open with telling people not to think or feel they way they do about a certain topic. Telling people, "don't dress it up like it's for preservation," is a great way for people to mentally resist your idea.

Emulation is more than just preservation. There are literally games that are unplayable unless done through emulation, such as the BS Zelda game someone above mentioned, or certain copies of arcade games that haven't been reproduced in decades.

There's no good coming out of what that website did. By stealing money off of Nintendo's intellectual property, they set themselves up for the lawsuit. However, someone downloading an old copy of Cybattler, a game that is no longer in circulation, isn't harming anybody. There's literally no financial damage to any party as a result of certain old ROM downloads. Heck, even Blizzard's original Diablo game is up on a certain website because they haven't done anything with it in years and years.

@dleec8 Someone doesn't know much about "public domain." Might want to read up on it before accusing the entire readerbase of stealing lmao.

@tabzer Exactly this. Very good and sensible take, here. Reminds me of what just happened with Dungeons & Dragons, and how for years everyone thought it was one person but in actuality it was another. Now that they are both deceased, the world knows the truth, but it's an extremely compelling story.

You can try and argue, and get support, when you are pirating roms not available for sale. But when you're pirating games on store shelves, that is just theft, plain and simple.

@Mr_Muscle Hey genius, did you know that video games published in the United States are protected under copyright for 95 years from the date of publication? Wow, I guess that explains why we don't see random companies selling old Atari and NES games without getting permission from the copyright owners first! Wow, according to you, there should be a huge legal market of old video games floating around that anybody can copy and distribute! But oh! That's not reality is it? Creative works are protected under copyright for a set number of years. That's why you can't legally copy roms of Pac-Man or Mario and sell them genius.

@Heavyarms55 I mean, technically it's copyright infringement, which is a different crime. Semantics, at this point.

@dleec8 I suggest staying less aggressive. It will make people listen to you. Nowhere in any post did I write anything about pirating and selling the pirated thing. I'm talking about downloading a ROM of a game that's no longer under production, and is therefor public domain. Let's keep the discussion civil. People aren't downloading ROMs that you personally own (as far as I know) so no need to jump on me about it.

@Mr_Muscle Fair enough. I'm no lawyer.

I hope this measures are for bring the gba and nintendo 64 to nintendo online store like snes and nes

@MinecraftBoy They should remove the internet.

@Mr_Muscle It isn't even about selling. If a work is copyrighted, you can't COPY it or DISTRIBUTE it because it doesn't belong to you. You're the one who accused me of needing to read up on something that I have already read up on and then you added in your snarky "lmao" for good measure. If you want to attempt to state facts in a public forum, then at least know what you're talking about. "lmao."

@dleec8 I'm replying to you based on things you said, and you started talking about downloading and selling roms. It's kinda weird talking to you, because you reply with things that I'm not talking about, and then come back at me with counter arguments to things I didn't say. Actually, it's kinda entertaining!

Anyway, to address something you actually said, there are many, many stipulations and exceptions to public domain, which is why I snarkily suggested you read up on it. Like I said, let's keep things civil. We can talk about this without jumping on each other. Peace, brother.

@Mr_Muscle This article is about a website selling roms for download, is it not? That is why I was bringing up selling roms. I also pointed out that according to you and your understanding of Public Domain law, you believed anybody could legally take ownership of old roms. Roms don't appear out of nowhere, they are provided by someone, such as through downloading them from a website. How do websites provide roms to people? They provide a copy of the data for download. So you're talking about roms, but you're somehow not talking about them being copied and made available for download? You're being disingenuous. A copyright literally means nobody can copy a creative work and distribute it to anybody else. The word copy is right there in copyright, as in no right to copy unless you own the copyright. Downloads are copies of games. Some websites also sell these copies, such as the website mentioned in the article. If you can't keep up with the topic, then that's on you. Goodnight bro.

300,000 downloads for. How many people have hacked their Switch 😳

@dleec8 Sorry you had a long day. Hope tomorrow finds you feeling better, so you don't have to be mean to people on the internet. Peace!

@Mr_Muscle "Someone doesn't know much about "public domain." Might want to read up on it before accusing the entire readerbase of stealing lmao."

If you want to come at someone like that then you better be right. Actually try reading up on a topic before trying to tell someone else that they're wrong and lmao'ing about it, when it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Later!

@dleec8 It is not "literally profiting off of stolen goods". It can be argued that it the are using piracy to steal potential profits, but hypotheticals are difficult to prove definitely. I'm not against the piracy site being shut down. It is in Nintendo's interest to pursue that end, and they have a compelling case to do so.

Jesus the drama and last word syndrome is real on this article. xD. Made for an entertaining read though. Also good on Nintendo for busting these guys attempting to make profit off illegally distributed games STILL ON STORE SHELVES. Thats a whole new level of dumb. Fully deserved imo.

@Mr_Muscle Funny you say that because you're the one who just can't admit he's wrong, just like a child. You keep adding little caveats in every post to try and save a little face instead of just saying hey, I was wrong. Here's an adult tip for you for the real world that I've been trying to teach you this whole time. If you come at someone aggressively and try to portray them as being uninformed, then you better be right. Because you're the one who got aggressive with me first. Don't be surprised when you get exposed for not knowing your s*** and you get your snark thrown right back in your face. You keep owning yourself in every post. You have a great talent for that I must say. Lmao.

@tabzer I was talking about the website mentioned in the article being the ones profiting. They were selling memberships to allow access to goods they did not own or produce. That is literally profiting off of someone else's work, not to mention the ad revenue they were generating to boot from the website traffic.

@Mr_Muscle I'll say again that downloading tons for preservation sounds noble until one consists that we have nothing saying that we're supposed to or have to do so. It's not a real justification.

Doing so because it's not hurting anyone isn't justification either. There's a lot of things you can do that don't directly financially hurt people but that doesn't stiffening make it permissible.

@MrVariant My first post points out that I'm fine with people making thier own roms. Selling or getting it from other sources is my issue

@tabzer the very first definition of theft of you Google it is:
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

The object taken does not have to be physical.

@Kyranosaurus It seems like your justification was essentially that "preservation is just something we do".

That's an interesting point but doesn't really justify anything.

@Kalmaro No, it really isn't. You ignore half of the definition: "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." The legal definition as well as the definition from any reputable source includes this clause.

How can you return "stolen" software that was downloaded without permission? There is a reason software piracy has its own name and definition, and is not called larceny, theft, or robbery.

You're pushing propaganda.

@dleec8 Me too.

@tabzer https://www.google.com/search?q=steal&oq=steal&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61.956j0j7&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

I didn't ignore half the definition, that's basically all there is there.

@tabzer Do you know what profit means? I'm legitimately asking because nothing you said in your original post has anything to do with the website profiting off of goods they neither own nor produce.

Profit:
Noun: "a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something."
In this definition, we see that a profit is earned when the amount earned selling something is greater than the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing that something. The website in question did not buy those roms, nor did they incur costs to produce them. Video games, even old ones, are protected under copyright law, meaning the website owners are stealing those games by illegally reproducing them online and distributing them to others. The only expenses the website owners have are maintaining the website and keeping it operational. I assume the website owners were earning more money through memberships and advertising then they were spending on maintaining the website, or else the website would have went out of business long ago. This means they were profiting off of the stolen goods of others, since they were earning money off of goods they didn't legally obtain in the first place.

Profit:
Verb: "obtain a financial advantage or benefit, especially from an investment."

The website owners were clearly obtaining a financial advantage in that they were charging members money to access the roms. Since the website owners didn't actually invest anything into obtaining the stolen roms, they were literally profiting off of the stolen goods of others. Those roms did not belong to them , and they were making money off of those roms.

Once again, I fail to see how anything you have written so far comes close to proving that the website owners were not profiting off of stolen goods.

I must admit I have a fairly extensive ROM collection myself though I definitely have my rules for this. Anything that comes from current or last gen is totally off the shelf as I can still fairly easily buy it and the companies that made them still stand to gain some of the money (so no xbox 360, Xbone, ps3, ps4, psvita, Wiiu, 3ds or switch games). Any console that's pushing 2 decades old or more? No one's getting hurt by that and chances are I have a real copy of it. Hell, somehow I have 3 Mario 64 cartridges.

ROMs as far as I'm concerned are a great way of preserving and sharing games that otherwise would have faded and been forgotten to history. It allows modding and translation patches by people truly passionate about the game. I've gotten to play the original rhythm paradise and sequel to kuru kuru kuruin on GBA and the chibi robo sequel on ds lovingly translated into English because of roms. And theres a ton of fan mods/rom hacks for well established games that put a whole new spin on things- there's a rom hack that mashes super metroid and link to the past together, blending and shuffling all item drops across both games. You need to bounce between the two games and search for the items you need to progress.

TLDR- switch and other current and last gen roms bad, super old game roms original creators wont see money for anymore are whatever.

Just another one among the hundreds.

Nintendo aren't even aware that people can grabbed the games for free from their eshop servers directly. Pirates had been doing that since the 3DS days. Downloading roms from pirate websites is so archaic.

A subscription for pirated games?!?

Hahaha...Why???

@tabzer You do realize that the software was all under copyright and couldn't be copied or distributed in any form or fashion right? Do you know what a copyright is? It means a creative work can only be recreated or distributed by the holders of the copyright. In the United States, for example, video games are given 95 years of copyright protection from the date they are first published. That means that literally EVERY single video game ever published in the U.S. is still under copyright protection. In the U.K , copyrights last for the entire life of the creator plus 70 years after their death. In Japan, it is the life of the creator plus 50 years. So you can see how basically every video game ever created is still protected from being copied by others. The website in question was providing digital copies of games for download without the consent of the owners of the copyright. To top it off, they were even making money off of the illegal distributions. Hopefully you have learned something about copyright protection and how virtually every game ever made is still protected from being copied and distributed without the owner's consent. Either the owners of the website paid for the rights to distribute those games, or they didn't, which makes their actions THEFT. We know they did not pay for the rights because the website has been taken down after Nintendo took action in the U.S. court system. It doesn't get more clear than that.

@Kalmaro your previous comment mentioned theft, which yields slightly different search result than steal, which is why there is inconsistency in this conversation. Also something needs to be "returnable" in order for it to be stolen. I also cited the legal definition of theft which is more fitting, contextually, than your fake application of it.

@dleec8 copied software is literally not "stolen". That was my point.

The concept of theft is not new, people. It requires something to be removed. What is being "stolen" is the financial gains, not the software.

Copyright:

"Copyright is a law that gives the owner of a work (like a book, movie, picture, song or website) the right to say how other people can use it."

The owners of the website didn't have the right to provide copies of software that they did not own to visitors of their website due to the copied software being protected by copyright. They had no right, at all, to provide copies of that software. Since they were providing copies of software that did not belong to them, it means the software was stolen. It is no different then if they went into Nintendo HQ and made physical copies of Nintendo games from their files and then provided the copies in physical form. The only difference is that the copies were in digital form. In both cases, the software does not belong to them, and it is stolen. If you don't understand this then there is no helping you because I have spelled it out for you as clear as day. Ask yourself why the website got taken down in the first place if the software being provided did not belong to them.

@tabzer

"Software theft means the unauthorized or illegal copying, sharing or usage of copyright-protected software programs. Software theft may be carried out by individuals, groups or, in some cases, organizations who then distribute the unauthorized software copies to users."'

Reference: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/22203/software-theft

@tabzer I'll let @dleec8 handle this, he's pointing you to the right direction already. If it wasn't possible to steal something immaterial then copyright wouldn't exist.

"Since they were providing copies of software that did not belong to them, it means the software was stolen."

That's incorrect. Selling "unlicensed" copies or bootlegs do not make the copies, themselves, stolen. That's not possible. The profits/rights/opportunity is what's being stolen from the IP holders. Unlicensed or "illegal" distribution or does not automatically mean theft. It's real simple.

I genuinely can't believe some of you are okay with taking something that doesn't belong to you for nothing in exchange. That's literally what our entire modern-age society is based upon. Distribution of goods for currency. Nothing is free unless stated so by the party with possession of said product. So why do you people assume it's okay to take something that used to be sold without paying a price towards the production in some fashion???

Good on them for doing this, but wait, is there even 300,000 switch games???

@Kalmaro "If it wasn't possible to steal something immaterial then copyright wouldn't exist."

Wrong. It is because it isn't possible to steal something immaterial that copyright exists. Also, your assumption that justice is perfect and/or consistent is blind.

@tabzer You don't get it. They can't provide copies of software that does not belong to them at all because they don't own the copies. It's that simple. What don't you understand about copyright and software theft that I have not already explained? Tell you what, go make your own website and provide downloads for software under copyright protection that you didn't get permission to provide and tell me what happens to you. You'll be taken to court for software theft. You're not living in the real world, and if you truly believe that distributing software that you don't have the rights to isn't software theft then I am afraid for what other incorrect beliefs you may hold in your life. It's like telling someone, "Hey man, if you keep giving out those free copies of Windows 10 that you illegally downloaded from that pirate site, you're gonna get in trouble for software theft." And you reply "Nah man, copied software is literally not stolen." If you can't understand the laws of the world then you're in for a rough life lol. Just because you refuse to acknowledge reality doesn't mean your reality becomes true.

@Kalmaro lol you're the lamest dude

@Fazermint What are you? 12?

Like the hydra, another two sites will pop up to take its place.

@dleec8 You simply aren't reading what I am writing. I am not promoting or defending piracy. I am saying that the copy of software is technically not theft. The cost/damage to the IP holder is the theft. It's real simple.

"You'll be taken to court for software theft."

Please show me were someone was charged with "software theft". Is "dlc theft" a lighter sentence?

@kuromantic I can't say I agree with everything you said, but this statement is probably the best of all comments:

"Even if you think piracy is wrong, the punishment Nintendo is seeking here is in no proportion to the site owner's actions."

I would do the same if I were Nintendo. But don't touch those old games that we never be able to get. And you're not releasing it either. Your license with some gamestudios are dead already and you don't hold those rights anymore. Right? Nintendo should focus on their main A++ titles that these aren't uploaded and pirated by people who are offering a free download. Maybe some other studio should chase their own titles if they really care... I wonder how it works... if a game is released on a system does it mean it's owned by Nintendo forever?

Problem with this is that Nintendo tried to do this before with other sites. They were successful but its like cutting the head off a hydra. You remove one and two more pop up in its place.
Does this mean they shouldn't bother then? No, thats not what I'm saying.
Will this make any difference to people who want pirated software on the Internet? No, that is what Im saying.
Just like Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way"
These pirated versions will still exist, and while they are out in the wild they will be shared by those who want them.
Closing down a site and suing for damages may make them feel a bit better in the short run, may even mean the warez will go quiet for a bit, but ultimately nothing will change.

@tabzer I am reading what you are writing, but what you are writing is your own opinion. Its literally just how you feel about software theft. You feel that copied software can't be stolen because the actual theft is the potential cost/damage to the "IP" holder. Uhhh, thats your opinion, but okay? You can't just state your opinion about something and that makes you right. So if instead of providing digital copies of software, I sneak into Nintendo HQ and steal a bunch of games and give them out for free or sell them. Isn't that theft of software? YES. Okay, now instead of stealing physical copies, I sneak into Nintendo HQ and copy digital games off of their server, go home, create a website, and provide copies of those roms for sale or for free even. Isn't that software theft? YES. What if I download some roms from a pirate site and then turn around and provide downloaded copies of those roms for free or for sale. Isn't that software theft? YES. What if I download Windows 10 from a pirate site and install it on my computer. Isn't that software theft? YES. Just because digital software isn't something you can physically steal doesn't mean it can't be stolen. Again, I can explain this to you all day but at some point you need to make the connections yourself.

Here is an article on software theft from:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/12/18/six-plead-guilty-in-100-million-software-piracy-case/

First paragraph:

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Six people pleaded guilty to charges related to more than $100 million in stolen software such as Windows XP that authorities said was one of the largest such piracy schemes prosecuted by the U.S. government."

Stealing software is a crime. If you don't own the rights to software, you cannot even have it installed on your computer. You certainly cannot make copies of the software for sale or for distribution. Again, you're just making up your own reality and somehow thinking that your way of thinking is how the world works. It doesn't. Take some business classes and you will definitely be taught about copyright law, digital theft and piracy, and the laws that apply. Don't take it from me, take it from the literal millions of other examples out in the world right now that prove that you are wrong, including this very article we are commenting on lol.

@kuromantic And it's incredibly entitled to think that a person who can't afford a game they want to play should be allowed to cheat the developers of said game by pirating it.

@kuromantic

“And it's even more interesting if you think about it this way: Chick fil a’s chicken isn’t available at The Cheesecake Factory. So technically, The Cheesecake Factory isn’t stealing from chick fil a’s profits, they are entering a different market (Fine dining) with Chick fil a’s chicken.”

Does this really make sense to you?

@kuromantic ...well that was a classist opinion in the opposite direction. I'd like to see sources on those accusations against Nintendo, but I'll ask this: If someone has such a strong opinion against Nintendo, isn't it completely hypocritical of them to even play games of theirs? Why would they ever want to do so anyway?

@Kalmaro I know exactly why you got the thumbs down. They are obviously got their games on that site too. How cruel.
I am not saying I'm religious but my family kind of taught me, even though it is just a free download and you're not selling it, but you're stealing someone's hard work. That's a sin.
I believe in sins, so yeah, it's not healthy as a whole.

I hope Nintendo won that lawsuit and use that money to create more exclusive Nintendo games. Let's start with...F-Zero Switch...

@dleec8 "I am reading what you are writing, but what you are writing is your own opinion."

That's your ignorant perspective. I wrote the legal definition of theft. Copying software, without permission does not qualify as theft. It qualifies as copyright infringement. There are varying degrees of legal repercussions for that.

"You feel that copied software can't be stolen because the actual theft is the potential cost/damage to the "IP" holder. Uhhh, thats your opinion, but okay? "

No, that's the rationale behind why copyright infringement and theft are different. (they are)

"You can't just state your opinion about something and that makes you right."

It's at least more informed than your opinion. You seem to run from the technical definition and stick to pop culture references.

You have yet to cite a situation where someone was charged with "software theft". Instead you took a "news" article that reinforces your views and cited it, instead of an actual legal charge.

While they're at it, they should sue the companies that sell Retropie-based consoles bundled with 20k game roms, among them large parts of Nintendo's retro libraries. The asking price tag is too high for just the hardware, so they're literally selling illegal roms.

@tabzer I have been sourcing all of my statements. That is called providing evidence. You have provided no evidence of anything you have stated. The fact that you don't realize that I have been providing evidence this whole time that supports my arguments, while you provide none at all, prove that you're just writing how you feel. I gave the the definition of a copyright and how it protects the creative works of others, I gave you a definition of software theft, and both of these definitions were literally taught to me while I was a business undergrad student. I gave you a real life example of men being charged with software theft, and you say I am yet to cite a situation where someone was charged with software theft. You want more? Okay.

Reference: http://www.siia.net/Divisions/IP-Protection-Services/About/Real-Life-Examples-of-Piracy
Quote:
"Web Pirates Punished
Judges routinely hand down tough sentences for software piracy. Three major software pirates were charged with criminal copyright infringement for their involvement in the manufacture and widespread distribution of pirated software. Both were initially investigated by SIIA and later referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Customs.

Danny Ferrar, owner and operator of BuysUSA. com, a massive for-profit software piracy website, was sentenced in federal court to six years in prison. Ferrar and his co-conspirators operated the www. BUYSUSA.com website, which sold pirate copies of Adobe, Autodesk and Macromedia software at prices substantially below the suggested retail price.

During the time of its operation, BUYSUSA.com illegally sold more than $4.1 million of copyrighted software, resulting in nearly $20 million in losses to the software owners. At the time of sentencing, this was the longest prison term ever handed down in a software piracy case. Ferrar was also ordered to forfeit the proceeds of his illegal conduct, pay restitution of more than $4.1 million, and perform 50 hours of community service.

The asset forfeiture included a Cessna 152; a Cessna 172RG; a Model TS-11 ISKRA aircraft; a RotorWay International helicopter; a 1992 Lamborghini; a 2005 Hummer; a 2002 Chevrolet Corvette; two 2005 Chevrolet Corvettes; a 2005 Lincoln Navigator; an IGATE G500 LE Flight Simulator; a 1984 twenty-eight foot Marinette hardtop express boat; and an ambulance - all of which Ferrar had purchased with the profits from his illegal site. Ferrar also agreed to surrender the proceeds of sales of two fire trucks that were also bought with his illegal proceeds.

Less than a month later, Ferrar's record prison term was shattered when Nathan Peterson, owner and operator of iBackups was sentenced to 87 months (7 years, 3 months) in prison for his crimes. Peterson had previously pled guilty to two counts of criminal copyright infringement. In addition to his prison term, Peterson was required to pay restitution of $5,402,448 and a $250,000 punitive fee.

Working on behalf of its members, SIIA first alerted the FBI of possible software piracy by Peterson and subsequently worked with investigators and prosecutors to assure that Peterson's operation was stopped and that he was properly punished. iBackups sold pirated software over the Internet, claiming it was "backup software" - legal copies of software to be used by the software licensee for backup in case of system crashes. It is, however, illegal to resell such copies.

Often software pirates are often not just intellectual property thieves, but are involved in other illegal activities. This proved true once again when, while on bond in this case, Peterson was convicted in Los Angeles for the sale of six handguns and an illegal assault weapon to an alleged heroin dealer.

Shortly after Ferrar and Peterson were sentenced, Jeremiah Mondello, formerly a college student from the University of Oregon, was sentenced by a U.S. District Court in Oregon on charges of copyright infringement, aggravated identity theft and mail fraud. Mondello received a sentence of 48 months in federal prison, three years supervised release following jail time, and 150 hours of community service per year. Further, Mondello's personal computers and $220,000 in cash were seized as part of the sentencing mandates. SIIA began investigating the eBay seller later discovered to be Mondello. Using data collected by SIIA's proprietary Auction Enforcement Tool, SIIA identified Mondello through his eBay seller ID and determined there were many more additional eBay identities that likely were being used by Mondello. SIIA then referred all of its case information to the DOJ's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Cyber Crime Center — where investigators were able to determine that Mondello was not only using a handful of falsified identities - but also created more than 40 fictitious seller IDs. He did so by recording and stealing peoples' bank account information through a keystroke logger that he distributed over the Internet. He then used that information to set up false PayPal accounts using fictitious seller names. By creating these fake seller IDs, he was able to artificially inflate his relatively high standing in the eBay marketplace, which he then used to attract sales and deliver the pirated goods.

Here it is AGAIN:
"Judges routinely hand down tough sentences for software piracy."

Piracy is another name for software theft, or maybe you didn't know that either since you don't seem to know much of anything. What constitutes software theft?

Reference:

https://itstillworks.com/legal-penalties-software-piracy-1158.html

"Types of Piracy
U.S. copyright laws categorize software piracy into three categories. Any infringements in these areas can result in legal action. Organized counterfeit sales involve illegally duplicating and selling copyrighted software without the permission of the copyright owner. Even purchasing the software may result in a fine. Unlicensed use is the most common type of piracy with home users and businesses. This occurs when individuals or employees make copies of or share software without an adequate number of licenses. This also includes using restricted-use software for other purposes, such as using academic versions in a business instead. The final type of piracy is hard disk loading. When software is loaded on a new or used computer by a third party without the copyright holder's permission, software piracy has occurred. This typically happens with shady computer retailers or repair technicians.

Damages to Copyright Holder
Anytime software piracy happens, the copyright holder loses profits for each occurrence. If found guilty, the accused is responsible for paying for any damages and lost profits. If the software has been shared with others, the accused may also be responsible for profits lost from each installed copy.

Federal Penalties
Software piracy is considered a federal crime, much like illegally downloading music and movies. Some cases may go beyond paying back the copyright holder and result in federal statutory damages. The amount varies per case, but can be as much as $150,000 per infringement.

Criminal Piracy
For people or businesses caught selling illegal software, the legal penalties are much worse. Fines can go as high as $250,000. The accused may also face up to five years in prison with a permanent felony on their record."

At this point, I am beginning to think you're not intellectually capable of understanding law, which is okay. But just stating your opinions while offering no evidence doesn't make anything you say true. Sorry to break it to you.

I say go for it. The "game preservation" part of me wants to keep rom websites, but this company is profiting by taking payments and rewards for games they don't own.

@dleec8 I cited the legal definition of theft, which proves that copyright infringement is not theft. Heresay is not valuable evidence to support the contrary. In your own cited article, the charges were two counts of criminal copyright infringement, not theft. It is media providers who support the notion that copyright infringement is theft because it is in their capital interest. It's also propaganda which you seem to eat up, and in turn, spew.

Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

You can say it's halfway like stealing, maybe. I'd say that it retains the benefits of theft and is missing the bad side of theft (ie getting robbed).

@tabzer Copyrights protect a creator from having their creative works copied, distributed, or sold in any fashion without their authorization. If I write a book, copyright it, and then you copy my book word for word and start distributing it, you have literally stolen my work. If I shoot a movie, copyright it, and you sneak into my office at night and create copies of it for distribution, you have stolen my movie. If I code a video game, copyright it, and you download an illegal rom and play it, you are in possession of a stolen good. All of these are examples of copyright laws being broken and of the theft of intellectual property aka piracy. I can just imagine you being taught about the world growing up and you saying no and then coming up with your own realities about things. Copyright infringement where you illegally copy and distribute digital goods unauthorized is literally dealing in stolen copies of goods whose ownership rights belong to other people. If I take something that doesn't belong to me, it is quite literally theft. You don't get it because I'm sure you don't get alot of things in life. And that's okay. There's a place in this world for everyone, even you.

@dleec8 "you copy my book word for word and start distributing it, you have literally stolen my work"

I stole from your profits via copyright infringement, but your work is still your work. You literally are misusing "literally". The expression that "I stole your work" maybe a socially acceptable way to express your sentiment, but it is a misnomer nonetheless. Also, in your example I need to copy and distribute for theft to occur (in your eyes). But even then, the actual theft was from your profits, which needs to be proven in order for you to get restitution. (according to what you cited) My correct assessment, that copying something (with or without permission) is not theft, is very basic and unchallenged.

"You don't get it because I'm sure you don't get alot of things in life."

Very classy. I guess I am losing an argument because someone is getting mad.

@ComposedJam its not for you to decided when where or how past games should be sold/stolen. its up to the Ip holder , the fact that you really really want to play them is irrelevant

@Ralizah "This isn't the case when a game is out of print and consumers have no legal recourse for obtaining a playable copy that directly benefits the original publisher, though. Pirating such games hurts nobody."

Unfortunately I don't think that's true. There are companies out there in the business of bringing these games back, such as HAMSTER's arcade series. And then there are companies like Nintendo themselves who use their older back catalogues as part of future products such as their online service. If these game are already out there for free and that's treated as legitimate and fine then it takes away from these companies products and can damage them.
Something not currently being available doesn't mean there is no intention to make something available. Company X might not be selling you game Y right now, but that doesn't make it ok to start distributing it for free. You don't own it, you don't know their plans for it.

Did anyone try the chicken? I thought the chicken was lovely.

@tabzer Don't take it from me. Ask any creator of a valuable intellectual property if they consider the illegal distribution and copy of their work to be theft or not. The very reason copyrights exist is to protect the creator of intellectual property from having someone else steal their work and profit off it, pass it off as their own, or to otherwise take ownership of it without authorization. Again, the definition of theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. It doesn't get more basic than that. You being stupid or unable to grasp a simple concept is on you. I don't mind if you live your life as an idiot. If I can't help you even when I tried to spoon feed you, then nobody will ever be able to explain the concept of theft to you.

Sorry guys, but @Anti-Matter is clearly the smartest guy in the room on this one. Although, the rest of you gave it a real good try. Maybe go back to law school and brush up.

@dleec8 "Ask any creator of a valuable intellectual property if they consider the illegal distribution and copy of their work to be theft or not."

That was never my argument. My argument is that for theft to occur, a loss must also occur. You don't seem to understand why you disagree with my statement. Downloading something without permission isn't automatically theft. It can be argued that theft occured if the IP holder feels that there is a loss. But that's often difficult for the IP holder to demonstrate. However, what I've said is technically correct.

I've never exactly rug-swept my own track record with emulation/CFWs, but I think I'm old enough to remember the days when romsites didn't decide to feature a 30-month-old console's library among their content... AND offer premium subscriptions for good measure. Insert the umpteenth Pikachu face here, I guess?

@tabzer

Here is the FBI literally describing what we are both discussing as "theft."

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft

"The Bureau has already been collaborating for years with brand owners, copyright holders, and trademark holders because we know the harm that intellectual property theft causes: legitimate businesses lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations, consumer prices go up, the U.S. and global economies are robbed of jobs and tax revenue, product safety is reduced, and sometimes lives are even put at risk. FBI efforts with these businesses to date have involved shared information, aggressive criminal initiatives based on current or emerging trends, and investigations."

The article states that the FBI works with copyright holders to defend against intellectual property theft aka copyright infringement, which applies to digital software and roms as well. The FBI itself calls it theft. You are simply arguing about whether a copyright violation triggers your personal beliefs about theft, which is simply arguing about what word to call a copyright infringement. The FBI calls it theft, creators call it theft, anybody who respects the work of others would call it theft.

And once again, I am arguing that taking something that does not belong to you, digital or not, copy or not, is theft. You argue that a potential loss must occur for it to be theft. What about the loss of control over ones work? Just because I own the master copies of my work doesn't mean that unauthorzed copies of it have not been stolen from my control. If I am given complete control of a creative work through copyright law, then I completely own the work, regardless of whether someone who has illegally copied my work never sells their copy and creates financial loss. I own the work. Not you. You have no right to copy my work. You have no right to possess my work even if I also possess it. I own ALL copies of that work. If you are in possession of something that belongs to me, that is theft. It is theft in every sense of the word.

@Kyranosaurus this is what I wanted to say.
@Kalmaro is basically waiting for someone is some presumable position of power to a rule to allow ROMs or game preservation, for him to accept it. He is treating these rules and laws like they are divine and not just made up by somebody somewhere

@dleec8 I haven't said anything that contradicts what the FBI says on that. Maybe you should read into it. It is clear that the article cites the loss of "billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations" which makes it clear that a theft has happened. Not all cases of downloading/copying copyrighted material is theft. Conflating infringement with theft is also bad form on your part. It shows you to be unreliable.

@technotreegrass
If they make them available however it would defeat the purpose of ROM sites. Everyone would have a chance to "own" retro games from a legitimate source as opposed to going to shady sites downloading ROMs and potentially viruses and the like to boot. It's really a win win for everyone, developers and creators get paid, we enjoy the games. Everyone would be happy except for the illegal sites of course.

@Galarian_Lassie
Well yeah if it's free (even if it's illegal) a small portion of people will absolutely do it. But with everything being available it would make the case very clear not just 42 shades of gray. If their legal department worked this hard obtaining licenses to their vast retro library as they were ROM sites it would hurt the illegal practices more seeing how you'd have less incentive to pirate.

Man, I'm running out of places to get my ROMS!

I picked up a bunch of great wii u games, including bayonetta 1 & 2, mario bros U, toad treasure tracker, and half a dozen 3rd party games for $5 each. That's what I call stealing.

@tabzer You're misrepresenting the FBI article by taking literally a handful of words then putting your own definition behind it, and you know it. I have been arguing about what constitutes theft: The literal loss of control over something you own all the rights to. Any logical person would agree that a copyright infringement triggers the literal definition of theft.

Source:Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-521-72812-6.

Quote: "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

As a copyright holder, I have the right to every copy of my creative work, even if you made your own illegal copies and I retained my master copies. The loss of control of my own work due to you now possessing copies of my work that I do not directly control trigger the moral, social, and legal definitions of theft. It doesn't matter if I suffered a massive or tiny financial loss, or none at all. I have the right to every single copy, not you. If you own even one unauthorized copy of my creative work, that is a stolen good in your possession. You may continue to argue over semantics but the truth of theft is the truth, whether you like it or not.

@dleec8 "I have been arguing about what constitutes theft: The literal loss of control over something you own all the rights to"

That's not the definition of theft. You also use the word literally so much that it doesn't even serve to function as a word anymore. I've already laid out the clauses of what constitutes as theft. If there is no loss, there is no theft.

"I have the right to every copy of my creative work"

No, you do not. Your imagination is wild. You give away, at least in part, those rights in the manner you agree to distribute. You can''t contradict contracts after you've made them.
Also, there are certain areas of jurisdiction where your rights are either strictly limited or non-existent. Also, the burden falls on you to prove theft occured if you make an accusation.

How convenient you ignore my quote, written by a law professor, from a book on cyber crime that is used to instruct criminal justice students at the university level. Here, you must have just missed it.

Source:Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-521-72812-6.

Quote: "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

"Professor Jonathan Clough teaches and researches in the areas of criminal law and evidence, with a particular focus on cybercime, juries and corporate criminal liability. He is the author of Principles of Cybercrime , 2nd edn, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) and co-author of The Prosecution of Corporations (Oxford University Press, 2002). He has published numerous articles in national and international journals, and is currently a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with the Victorian Department of Justice examining improved methods of judicial communication with juries. He has provide advice to government and presents to the judiciary and the legal profession. He teaches Criminal Law and Evidence in the LLB, and Cybercrime and Corporate and White Collar Crime in the LLM. He is currently Director, Higher Degrees by Research."

I guess you must know more than an actual law professor who advises government, the judiciary, and law enforcement as well?

There is no loss there is no theft? The loss of control over copies of my work being distributed without my consent is a loss you idiot. Then you state that a copyright owner loses some manner of control over those rights in the manner they agree to distribute. Well guess what idiot, when did Nintendo agree to distribute their roms to the website lol?? When does a copyright owner agree to have their work illegally copied and distributed? They don't agree! That's the whole point stupid. I don't agree to you creating copies and here you are creating copies and sending them out into the world without my consent. According to not only me, but to the law professor I just cited, and according to copyright law itself, that's theft. You're too stupid to get it even when I've spoon fed you like a child.

@dleec8 I'm not contradicting him or arguing with him. He literally spells out how copyright infringement works. I have no problem with what he says. Somehow, you think by throwing a wall of text at someone constitutes as an argument or "spoon-feeding". Get real. I've also stated that your imaginary rule over every single copy of your work is unfounded and not covered in every instance.

@icerzerocool
As long as I ask Gawd for forgiveness for my sins I should be fine.

@dleec8
To be fair though that is just one professors view. It's not the view taken by everyone involved in law. For a company to claim loss while not doing anything to make money off of something 30 odd years after release is a bit ridiculous. The only ones who make money in the second hand market is the cart seller not the developers.

@shaneoh LOL you're trolling God

@icerzerocool
I'll ask forgiveness for that too.

@GameOtaku @tabzer Oh now you have no problem with copyright infringement, in our case being the illegal copying and distribution of the copyrighted work of another, equating to theft. But you sure have had a problem with it all night. Must be your imagination running wild thinking you weren't resisting that very point all night. Here's some greatest hits of you doing just that:

"Conflating infringement with theft is also bad form on your part."

"My correct assessment, that copying something (with or without permission) is not theft, is very basic and unchallenged."

"Unlicensed or "illegal" distribution or does not automatically mean theft. It's real simple."

"I cited the legal definition of theft, which proves that copyright infringement is not theft."

That is all your words, stating that copyright infringement is not theft. And by the way you never cited anything. The entire reason I was having this discussion with you and with anybody else is because they instruct business students on the topic of copyrights and their application within the law. I also took a e-commerce class where they expanded on this topic as well, and I know what I'm taking about, you don't. You never spoke to anybody of authority about this or studied it in a real setting on your life. I don't work in copyright law, but as an accountant, I have a thorough understanding of copyrights due to my education and due to how important lucrative copyrights can be to generating revenue. A company needs to know how copyright law works and how to defend creative works from unauthorized use. Clowns like you who just argue just to argue then get exposed for knowing nothing are a dime a dozen on the internet. You can try to enlighten a clown but he's still gonna honk his nose and jump around like an idiot until he can't jump around anymore. Go talk to people who actually work in copyright law and they will tell you the same things I have.

Otaku, it isn't just one professor, it's anybody involved in copyright law.

@tabzer Cite something, anything, that backs up anything you've tried to say. From a credible source. You can't do it you clown.

@dleec8
I'm sorry have you ever sat in on a jury? The prosecution call a professional to give testimony arguing one way and the defense is just as likely to call an expert of their own in the same field with s differing point of view.

My POV is if they are actively making an effort to sell said products then it's illegal. However by not making them available the only other recourse is second hand sales (which doesn't give them a dime either) or emulation. Are they that blind to not see they can make money?

@GameOtaku For the jury example to apply to what was just being discussed, it would literally have to be a case about arguing over the meaning of a word, because that's basically all that has been going on here. One person arguing a word means something from one point of view, and another person arguing over what the word means from another point of view. In reality, a thing is a thing, whether you have 2 names for it or 50 names for it. But I know what you mean.

@dleec8 not all forms of copyright infringement is theft. Your rights aren't "stolen" if somebody does something without your permission, using your works.

I cited what the legal definition of theft is.

"Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently."

Simple stuff. That's why copyright infringement is a thing, because the legal definition of theft does not accurately represent what you are talking about. IP theft is related to the misappropriation of illegal copies for a type of gain which potentially deprives the IP holder. IP theft is a type of copyright infringement but not all copyright infringements are IP theft. ( Dowling v. United States -1985)

Keep calling me a clown though. Your harmless raging is cute.

@tabzer Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.

Not all of those are material. The ideas and words in a book are immaterial

@Fazermint I'll survive.

@konbinilife Close, I'm waiting for the owner of a product to say what they will allow to be done with this product. You're kinda acting like I'm waiting for a special revelation from God

@kuromantic No, I don't believe in in allowing people to break rules and laws just because they REALLY want something. No functioning society works like that.

Imagine cops allowing people to do whatever they want because that person REALLY wants to do it.

@Kalmaro You are a bit late and what you've stated is irrelevant to almost every single point stated.

@tabzer I spoke the truth, the truth is never it out date.

@Kalmaro And apples can be red or green.

It's not "out of date". It's irrelevant, and too late to even have the appearance of being so. I never had dispute with the definition of "copyright".

The dispute is "does copyright infringement equal theft" and not only did I logically assess "no, not always", legal precedent supports it too.

@tabzer This is not one of this cases where it falls into a grey area though. We're still discussing purposefully taking copied materials from someone else and those things taken do not always have to be material themselves.

About the only way to get around that is if you were copying something that belonged to no one.

@Kalmaro What is it, exactly, that you disagree with what I've said? It sounds like you are trying to invent an argument.

@tabzer Actually, yeah, let's back up.

When you said "It is because it isn't possible to steal something immaterial that copyright exists."

What did you mean?

@tabzer

pi·ra·cy (pī′rə-sē)
n. pl. pi·ra·cies
1.
a. Robbery or other serious acts of violence committed at sea.
b. The hijacking of an airplane: air piracy.
2. Copyright or patent infringement: software piracy.
3. The illegal interception or use of radio or television signals.
4. An instance of piracy: a surge of piracies.

Damn shops have no more popcorn left

@Kalmaro I'm guessing you were that annoying kid in grade school.

@tabzer
@dleec8 You simply aren't reading what I am writing. I am not promoting or defending piracy. I am saying that the copy of software is technically not theft.
Piracy is theft whether it is software, forms of literature or copying anything without permission of the copyright holder. Once it is public domain then it is permissible.

Copying someones work is piracy and theft has been proven by my efforts in a court of law. I have successfully sued several people who pirated my work. The judge agreed with our assertion and ruled as such.

@MrMetroid Perhaps? Everyone annoys someone.

@Zidentia I get that's the definition of "piracy". But you should also be able to tell that "copyright infringement" is not "Robbery or other serious acts of violence committed at sea". The term software piracy was intentionally chosen by media providers to convey the idea of theft, to a fault.

"Piracy is theft"

Wrong. Others, and myself, have already demonstrated how this ridiculous blanket statement can be contradicted. By itself, the copying of data (for various reason) is not theft. Heck, even blatant copyright infringement does not necessarily equal theft. Only when someone has been robbed, has there been a theft.

I read the comments section here a lot, but I made a profile just so I can take part in this one haha.

Basically, what I've read is that some people say pirating is okay as long as it is preserving old games and there are some people saying that it is not okay at all. Here's the thing, ROMs are illegal, whether you are distributing or downloading them. You can try to justify it all you want, but at the end of the day, it's still illegal until you get laws changed. If there was a law against eating ice cream, you could say that's stupid and that the law wouldn't really help anyone, but it's still a law and we need to follow it. Another thing, say someone that lived near me dies and he had tons of really rare antiques and stuff, but no inheritance and it will probably just be sold to random people and not be able to be appreciated by the world. Does that give me the right to go steal it and give it to a museum? No, absolutely not. If he was still alive, I could ask him about it, but some things are just out of our control.

ROMs are illegal (of course unless you own the game and even then you are supposed to make it yourself), so instead of saying we have the right to do something illegal, why not use your rights of speech and protest about how we aren't allowed to do it, so something should be done about the rule. If you're so concerned with saving the history of a game, why not try to get this rule changed to allow for certain ROMs that fall under a legal clause.

Feel free to debate because honestly I would love to.

@Kalmaro If you can’t prove that there is any financial damage then there is no crime. Sorry dude that’s just how it works.

@tabzer
The law is clear on this and we just proved it on an old case of piracy/theft.
I created a work that I own due to my copyright. I licensed the work out to a single person for use. Depending on the license this purchaser may make a copy, give it away or possibly sell it(depends on the agreement). The license agreement does not allow for the purchaser to give away multiple copies or sell multiple copies even if I gave that work to them unless I specifically state in the agreement it is permissible.

To do so other wise is theft of IP regardless if it is one copy or multiple copies. The theft is the removal of potential profits generated from the work.

@Zidentia "The theft is the removal of potential profits generated from the work."

And I agree with that statement. I did not contradict that. In fact, I stated that about 12 hours ago, this morning (my time). The argument of what constitutes as IP theft is case by case, determined by judge/jury. There are cases where copyright infringement is not IP theft, which I also pointed out recently.

I also want to make it clear I want to preserve games for posterity but we have to walk the line between the law and desires. I have software that was signed over to a publisher who refuses to do anything with it. I had no options at that time but I did not make that mistake on future contracts.

WOW.....until now the "Nintendo goes after ROM site" have all been around sites offering SNES and N64 titles Nintendo may-or-may-not offer via a VC service. This is the first one with a site offering CURRENT platform ROMs, and charging for it! How exactly did it take Nintendo or any other publisher this long to catch onto this?

@Ralizah I suppose where that sort of thing gets really sticky though is, for example licensing contracts and the like. Say the original NES Duck Tales game. Capcom paid Disney for the right to produce it for X amount of time. That time came and went, they got their contractual obligation of selling as much as they could within the term of that contract, and then by rights that contract is done. Yes, you "can't legally get it anymore", no it's not "stealing from someone that's trying to sell it", and yet the terms of that contract ended in like 1989 or 1990....duplicating more copies is doing so explicitly outside the contract Disney allowed to do it.

Not that Disney's going to miss some pennies.....Disney could lose a yacht cast in solid gold and not even notice the rounding error on the balance sheets. But from a moral perspective, duplicating copies of something in 2019 for which the terms of the paid contract for producing copies ended 30 years prior and the entity that issued the contract/license still exists..... it may not be "theft" but it's also not "legitimate" either....there's so much gray area with being able to duplicate things simply because you can.

Society is so broken because we plowed ahead with digitization of the world without ironing out behavior and legality before doing so, and drawing lines between what you can do, and what you should be able to do and codifying that before just dumping it on the world and letting everyone fight it out.

@dleec8
That really is where legal grey areas crop up. How things are written. "Often" implies while it may be true sometimes it's not in other situations. In the above story it's clear that they were stealing from Nintendo since all you needed was a membership and could download ROMs of current switch games. They could prove a loss of revenue thus theft. Older games though is a different story especially those pushing 30 years old. They'd have to prove loss and since most have never been rerelease dots hard to prove. Instead of fighting it this way why not rerelease the entire retro library? It would prove loss and offer a way to purchase, own and play games.

@Kalmaro So if someone 20 years from now wanted to play Mario Sunshine... And Nintendo does not sell the game on ANY system anymore... you think that they should not be able to play it?

@Manski777 ROMs are not illegal. ROMs are contained in the original cartridges, so by your logic a guy on eBay can’t resell a used NES game. The distribution of ROMs is only illegal if it causes financial damages to the parties in question. That’s why Nintendo is able to sue this particular rom site. They were essentially stealing Nintendo’s thunder.

You can always test the moral fiber of people with ROM discussions. Whether or not you think it is right or wrong isn’t the issue. It’s WHY people think it’s wrong or right. People of low moral fiber think it’s wrong or right no matter what with zero exception and little thought beyond that. People with higher moral fiber are able to discuss their view in a more balanced way and explain why beyond, “it’s illegal so there.”

Murder is illegal. Yet, there are times where a court ruling set someone who committed murder free of any charges. One famous case set a father free because the person he killed his only daughter. Rare, but these sorts of rulings happen and it shows an instance where something as bad as murder is “ok.”

Going back to the ROM thing, yes it’s illegal to distribute them. But, if you own the game physically or the rights to the game have been lost due to a company liquidating or something, then there are no financial damages. Remember in order for there to be a crime in regards to copyright infringement, there needs to be a financial loss on the part of the person(s) who own the copyright. A game that is out of print falls in this category. A game that is still physically sold by the company is obviously illegal to distribute.

@DStanton See, that’s a reasonable example. The game is out of print. It’s not causing financial damages to anybody, especially in 20 years. Heck, Nintendo might do a 180 and stop selling games by then and change their business practice. I wonder if that guy would think it’s wrong, in that case?

The moment you charge for your site is the moment Nintendo definitely going to hone in on you.

@tabzer Thank you. There are all these black and white thinkers that can’t see any middle ground whatsoever. It’s refreshing when someone reasonable pops in. Peace!

@DStanton Yes. You, as a player, don't have the right to play something simply because you want to.

@Mr_Muscle You know what I meant when I was using the term ROMs when referring to them in an illegal way. Yes, they distribution of ROMs is illegal, obviously not the ROMs themselves...

If I think murder is totally cool in certain situations, would you not think I was crazy? Express your opinion all you want, it's still illegal nonetheless unless something changes.

Self defense is completely different then murder, you are trying to protect yourself or something. There are clauses for murder that make it okay as long as it's in self-defense. The only clause that allows you to copy a ROM is you have to own the game and you may make a copy for yourself.

Yes, if literally nobody owns the right to the game, it would be legal to distribute the ROM as there would be nobody to stop you from doing so. But the fact is there aren't that many cases of this, and even fewer for games that people really care about. The argument is almost meaningless unless that's all your trying to prove, which in that case I would agree with you. In any other case though, it's illegal, and seeing as how there is an owner to the rights of the game in these cases, the proper solution would be to contact them about it. You might make the argument that if it's a bigger game developer or company, they wouldn't really care about your opinion, but in most cases, they will most likely re release the game if it hasn't been already for more monetization. As for smaller companies, they may or may not decide to listen to you, but that's their decision and you can't expect to save literally every game in existence.

@Manski777 I don't want to save every game, though. There's already a museum that is doing that. I just want to have backups of my older, physical collection because let's face it. Even though NES and SNES games are built like tanks, they still have small parts that can fail. Capacitors burn out, the gold contacts can become damaged and not function. I have a couple games that are considered rare, and if they break I don't plan on replacing the carts. Having an emulator enables me to keep my collection intact for a longer period, and guess what? The parties that be still got their money, so nobody was hurt and no crime was committed.

If you thought murder was acceptable, I wouldn't think you're crazy. I teach self defense as part of my profession, so it's not the first time I've had the talk. The point is to recognize that none of these issues are as black and white as the majority of the userbase seems to be arguing. Of course, laws are in place both as a preventative measure and as a way to moderate crimes after the fact. Yet, all crimes need to be proven in a court of law. Simply doing the thing isn't illegal, from a moral perspective. Doing the thing, getting caught in the act, and then having charges pressed against you is when it really starts to count.

There's a reason that in law school, most teachers spend a great deal of time teaching their students the dilemma that is, "the letter of the law, vs. the heart of the law." That's why you see murder cases like the father who murdered to avenge his daughter get overturned in rare cases. He committed murder out of mental anguish, and I think that's okay. Others may not. The people that really mattered (the jury and judge) thought it was reasonable enough to be overturned.

I'm not against opinions; I'm against black and white thinking. That's mainly why I enjoy these discussions, because I get to "mentally arm wrestle" with people who have differing views than me.

@DStanton I can't speak for other countries but in the US, copyright expires 99 years after the death of the author unless renewed. In the case of corporate ownership, there's precedent for it to simply be 99 years after publication.

This wasn't an accident. It was explicitly set up so that the owner, and the owner's assigned heirs have total ownership of their creation. If they decided not to publish/print/display it, they are granted the right of withholding their work, be it for commercial or personal reasons. After 99 years (from the author's death, or 99 years in a corporate case) it becomes part of the public domain, free for all to access or copy.

The entire point is that the creator(s), dead or alive, have their will of their body of work preserved or not, as they intended for within the reasonable scope of one or two societal generations, after which it is far enough removed from relevance to the newer generation that they may use it as they please.

My point is, long ago, our society already deliberated and considered all the ramifications you're asking about, already considered that, and and already agreed upon the best, fairest way to deal with it, is wait about a century after the work to pass to then open it to everyone.

The short of it is, as of July 2101, you can post roms of Sunshine on as many sites as you want and everyone has an absolute right to enjoy it. Before July 2101 anyone doing so is a dirty thief. Very specifically, it's intended to become a universal right after you and I are dead. By design.

Of course if current society disagrees with that and wishes to implement another system, then what you suggest is revisiting and rewriting copyright law. Which is fine, and there's a lot of calls for that from various fields outside gaming, and might not be a bad idea. But it's not like you're talking about a gray area that began with video games that nobody ever thought of before. It's no different than any other form of creative work, and a policy for dealing with exactly what you're saying was already crafted centuries ago.

People were distributing Switch and 3DS ROMs on websites? I thought nobody would want to run a site that generates that many gigs of traffic and resort to OTHER MEANS of distribution.

I had seen one website claiming to distribute 3DS ROMs but considering all the links were .exe files it was pretty safe to assume the files were viruses. Nobody distributes actual ROMs that way.

@NEStalgia It was originally something like 14 years and no, copyright law was NOT set up specifically to extend beyond the creator's lifetime.
The reason it's 95 years is because Disney wants its mouse and doesn't give a **** about the effect they cause on the rest of society.

@KingMike This is closer to the truth than many people would think!

@Mr_Muscle

If you are just arguing about backing up games you already own, that is actually completely within your legal rights to do so, and I definitely agree that it's okay. The line is crossed when you start distributing or downloading games for the sake of "preserving history" as others have stated.

Also I would say doing something "illegal" is defined as doing something against the law, whether or not anyone cares or catches you. And people with higher morals would obey the law rather then disobey it, but I'm not sure which viewpoint you were trying to convey there.

Psychopaths commit murder out of anguish, that doesn't mean that they should go off killing people. I was under the assumption he committed it in self-defense, but if he went off at a later time to get revenge I would say that's incorrect, but if you disagree I'd rather not argue about morals as I doubt I could change yours then (Sorry if I sound harsh there. I don't know how to word that without sounding harsh, but I don't mean to be).

@Manski777 You're good! It's just a discussion. I'm not trying to change your views; simply share mine. Trust me, though, there are people with high morals that still break laws!

Heck, there's a law that says video arcades are illegal in my hometown. It's never been changed, it's still on the books and can be actively pressed if someone really wanted to. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this! lol

@Mr_Muscle

Well obviously some people make mistakes / have high morals for some things and not others, everybody is different. And honestly a law against video arcades? Do you guys have any video arcades in your town then? I mean I see where your going with this but my course of action would be to use your voice to speak up about it (but it probably doesn't affect you, like if you had a problem with it I mean haha)

@somebread I was genuinely asking since I couldn't come up with one. They've never released digital versions of their N64 games? One I can think of that annoys me is TLoZ four swords on the game cube.

@dleec8 That's only because Disney bought off politicians. It should only be 20 years really.

@Manski777 Charles Bronson in Deathwish was completely moral in wiping out criminals.

@Manski777 Oh, there are tons of arcades in town. They were outlawed in the 50’s or so because the mafia was making pinball arcades their hang out. The law is on the books but nobody enforces it.

@Trajan I haven't seen that movie, but I'm assuming you're saying that it is morally okay to take judgement into your own hands and punish criminals yourself. Let the due process of law get them, unless they are a threat to you or your families safety, which in that case you need to do something about it yourself.

Good shut it down. It's stealing for god's sake.

@Mr_Muscle Ah I see, if I were them, I would try to get it changed, but from a time perspective I would see why they wouldn't. I would say it's alright from a moral standpoint just because it isn't actually harming anything, while my argument for distributing ROMs still stands because it harms the income of the developers, whether directly or indirectly. And call me crazy, but if I was an owner of an arcade I honestly would just write a letter to get it changed, unless there's just some clause that allows for it now. Better safe then sorry y'know?

Man, so many people so angry about piracy sites... Get used to it kids. I'm in my 40's, I've been pirating games since I was a teenager using IRC. It's not going anywhere. When one of these sites gets taken down, another 10 will just pop up, it's how it goes. Once a site gets too big and popular they always become the target.

@NEStalgia so in 99 years... Nintendo (if still in business), would allow anyone to use a game with Mario for free? And Mario is also copyrighted/trademarked... So does that mean that Mario will be free for anyone to use too? Lol

@teamdave2002 What good is that though? Why produce something if people can't enjoy it?

Going by that logic, Nintendo could never rerelease super Mario 64... And no future generations will be aware of the game and how it changed the industry.... Imagine future generations not being able to play Pacman or any other game icon...

The same could be said for books and movies... Once it's not produced anymore, how can one still enjoy it? Not EVERYTHING is sold on eBay lol. Think about all the good games, books and movies that would never be enjoyed by future generations.

I understand that it's the copyright owner's choice, however it's a dumb anti-consumer choice. It doesn't benefit ANYONE if Nintendo decides to leave behind great games that could be enjoyed by millions of fans.

@kuromantic What it comes down to is of such thing as objective morality exists. I believe there are such things as a right and wrong, no matter the situation, even your example.

@DStanton The fact that you can't get something, and want it, does not mean you deserve it.

well it makes sense there mad cause there trying to steal there credit can't blame them..

@DStanton Books go out of print all the time. There are tons of movies, mostly from the beginning of film, that you simply can't see anymore. Art is lost. It happens. But it doesn't give you, the consumer, the right to steal it simply because you want it, however noble your motivation may be.

@DStanton
Trademarks are infinitely renewable, so as long as Nintendo doesn't allow the "Super Mario" trademark to lapse, they will forever own the name.

Also, because something is in the public domain doesn't mean the former owners can't rerelease it. Disney, for example, releases its Oswald cartoons even though they are all in the public domain.

@ComposedJam You are mistaken, the views I hold apply to everyone, not just companies. I don't believe in taking things from anyone just because you want it. It just so happens that were talking about Nintendo here. I've said as such several times.

If I was a shill, I would just be saying Nintendo or companies need to be protected.

@KingMike Perhaps so, but it's still not a gray area, it's something that's already been deliberated on. There's always room to change that as a society if those rules aren't working well. But it's not something that doesn't fall into the rules already established based on conditions that were already deliberated. "I don't like the rules, so I'll just ignore the rules so long as I don't get caught, and screw everyone else" is not how a society of laws operates. That's an anarchy at best, and a banana republic at worst. If you don't like the laws, work to change the laws. If you feel changing the laws is impossible, then you already live in a banana republic, and working on a revolt may be a better use of time than unauthorized duplication of copyrighted entertainment.

@DStanton Trademarks are not copyrights. Trademarks can be indefinitely renewed as an active brand/property that is unique and recognizable. Nintendo can renew the the trademark on Mario until the Sun goes red giant if they'd like.

COPYRIGHTS, however expire. There's no date where Mario the character/trademark becomes public domain so long as they keep renewing that brand trademark. However Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, Mario 64, etc each have a date where they become public domain.

@teamdave2002 So what is the logic in having "lost art" (movies, books, games etc.)

As I said before, Nintendo could theoretically ensure that Mario 64, never sees the light of day again... I don't see that being a win for anyone... Nintendo or consumers.

I know its not a law, but IMHO if something is not available to purchase anymore it should become public domain. Hardware breaks.... If you have a NES game and your system broke... not much you can do at that point except buy a new NES off ebay... I would happily rebuy a product time and time again to ensure I still have access to it years down the road.

@ComposedJam "I already have my collection I need to play."

That right there is your main problem. These are video games. This is not a need. You're thinking about this from a flawed perspective.

@DStanton who says there has to be logic?

Just because you don't see something as a win for Nintendo doesn't mean that they don't. You don't speak for them, after all.

I will just never understand yours, and pretty much everyone else arguing the point that it's okay to steal something because you want it and you can't have it. I can't get behind that argument.

@teamdave2002 So you think that if Nintendo wants none of their software to be re released that future generations should not be able to enjoy their games?

@DStanton It's their games, they can decide who can or can not play them.

@Dragonstar
Sure Mr. Joined at 11:58. Using the process of justifiable rights anyone can reason that their behavior is right but laws and rules do exist. We need some type of structure to exist or the whole things goes to crap. Some rules/laws are crap but this one is not. It protects those who create a work against those who would deem it their right to misappropriate it without due compensation.

@DStanton I didn't create the art, so it's not my decision to make. But quite honestly, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other. There's plenty of current art out there for current fans and future fans to enjoy.

Nintendo only do this because they like to charge for the same damn dumps each time a new console iteration comes out. If they didn't they would sell us the ROM (as a one off) and allows to use the 'same' emulator they use for - said - console iteration(s).

To put it in to context, it would be like being reinvoiced for your car each time a new model revision comes out.

I question who the thieves are at times and before anyone gets of their horse I don't really see a few people playing snes9x once in a blue moon a major threat to the industry. Like I said - Nintendo have had their dollar several times over now with a lot of these releases. It's becoming unfair.

As for emulation - I'm all for it. I own a custom bartop arcade running hyperspin - I play it now and then. Do I feel guilty or breaking the law? No I feel nostalgic and that's a good thing.

This will amount to nothing other than Nintendo's money being wasted

@Zidentia I never said it's right or not, it's just the way the world works. Stealing has existing since the dawn of time, it will never go away, get used to it. I wasn't arguing it's right, or not right. I simply said get used to it, stop getting so upset about it.

@Dragonstar That's a horrible reason to stop getting upset over something. I hope you remember that should diverting steal from you.

No point in getting mad over diverging that happens all the time, right?

@ComposedJam I'll own it after you admit to believing ownership only matters until someone wants your possessions really bad.

@shaneoh lol, reading through the comments, everyone seems so agitated, your comment just gave me a laugh

I've never heard of this website until this lawsuit.

But since this has happened. While we're all expecting Nintendo to win this since they seem unstoppable every time they go to court in regards to copyright infringement. At the same time. I'm expecting thousands of users to grab everything off that website and redistribute it across the internet in many future rom sites yet to be made.

I suppose we're all wondering how much will Nintendo be actually offered if this gets settled out of court like the last one.

@Kalmaro Some of those games aren't even Nintendo IPs

Some of them aren't even released titles (see Thrill Kill)

Some of it isn't even classed as "stealing" as some of these games are ABANDONWARE and don't even have shareholders anymore.

You're wrong.

Preservation of classic games is an important thing.

It's sad to see you so willing to wipe rare gems off the face of the planet.

@Doktor-Mandrake "You're wrong.

Preservation of classic games is an important thing."

If you can prove that this is anything other than your opinion, I will change my mind.

Until then, my comment stands, wanting something really bad does not give you ownership, that's not how any functioning society works.

@Kalmaro If you can prove that this has anything to do with me "wanting something" and not to do with me wanting these games playable, even in 200 years from now.. I will change my mind.

But as it stands, not all of us are motivated by our own selfishness

Here's a little tip for you.. Morals and Law are not the same thing.

@Kalmaro and just a heads up

There's no reason to try and change my mind on this, I've been a big part of the emulation scene for many years now so you're barking up the tree.

If it's between picking sides with a multi million corperation, or the people... It's going to be the people everytime..

You may pick Law over Morals but that doesn't mean we all have to.

@Galarian_Lassie They aren't doing too bad. Just purchased the last Fight Night Champion they released. Looks and plays amazing on the Xbox one x. But they will never get the full library, sad.

@acachewowow Fight Nights still a thing?

Damn, wish EA would release those games on PC already

Loved Round 3 on my Xbox 360

So many digital archaeologists willing to sacrifice morality for the greater good of humankind. Arrgh!

@Doktor-Mandrake it's not a thing anymore, but I never played the last one. Looks amazing for a game from 2011. EA transitioned from boxing to MMA. Bad move IMO.

RomUniverse is seriously asking for donations because of the lawsuit. Yes lets donate to a website that directly steals current gen games. No thanks

@Doktor-Mandrake I'm not here to change your mind, so that's perfectly fine. It's clear you prefer to do what is convenient and cooperations are a nice target... since you seem to believe they don't deserve their property.

I just have different standards.

That and, as there's nothing saying a game has to be around for so long, there's no leg to stand on other than personal opinion.

@Kalmaro lol how can your steal something that doesn't exist?

@strider100x What are you saying doesn't exist, the games?

If it doesn't exist then how are people playing it?

@Kalmaro A game doesn't 'have' to be around for so long, but you could apply that logic to anything

The internet itself doesn't 'have' to be around that long

Your favourite TV show doesn't 'have' to be around that long.

Maybe you don't understand that not everyone sees video games as disposable.. But pieces of art.

Would you be so happy to wipe the mona lisa off the face of the earth? afterall it doesn't 'have' to be around for so long, right? But I guess you don't understand that to some, certain games are like art to us.

Maybe my "in 200 years" comment didn't sink in, because this isn't about >me< playing old games.. This is about people, in the future, even when everyone here is all dead.. Can still sit down and play some Super Mario Bros. 3

And if you still don't get it, well I suppose anything that gets preserved, wether it be video games, art, old buildings with history.. Well, we can just throw it all in the bin, right?

Hell, all those dinosaur fossils will 100% have to go, afterall.. It doesn't 'have' to be around for so long.. Millons of years? Pfft, who cares?

@Doktor-Mandrake You don't seem to be addressing the main point though.

You are acting as if the art should be saved. If that is true, what are you basing that on?

If it's just your opinion then fine, everyone is entitled to their own views. If you're trying to say that there's some objective rule saying we have to keep all art around forever and, thus, we ha e the right to break any rule to do so then I'm going to have to ask you to prove such a rule exists.

@Kalmaro Maybe you could eleborate on what this "main point" is then?

You're the one who said "No one deserves a game just because they can't get it anymore."

And I addressed that point with a counter-argument, one you haven't been able to dismiss so far.

If you don't think preserving things is important, that is YOUR opinion.. But you are the one telling people they are in the wrong for wanting to preserve certain things.

@Doktor-Mandrake You haven't really refuted the argument. For one thing, I never once said that we shouldn't preserve... anything really.

What I did say is that, if something is still in the possession of the owner, it is up to them how their property is treated.

Taking something from someone else is wrong, I think we can both agree that theft is bad.

Taking from someone in the name of preservation is still taking from someone.

Now, as I've commented before (but perhaps not directly to you) my entire argument concerns stuff that is owned by someone else. If we're talking about things that no one ones anymore then I don't care, people can do whatever they want. Like if there was a game that no company owns then, by all means, back it up.

If there's something I missed that I didn't respond to I may have overlooked it. It wasn't intentional though, I tried to reply to the basic idea of your comment, I don't like being too wordy.

@Kalmaro Yeah and in my initial post I stated

-Not all those roms are IPs belonging to Nintendo

-Some of those games are abandonware, I even refferenced a game called Thrill Kill for the PS1, but it's a game that never even got a release, but it's fully playable game thanks to roms

-The idea behind it is not to steal, but again to preserve

-Another thing I mentioned in my previous post, was the difference between Law and having Morals.. It was once illegal for black people to vote in the USA.. But according to you that was the "right" thing to do because it was the law.

These are all things I've already said to you, and now I've had to repeat them

So yes, I did refute your argument.. I can understand peoples issues with Nintendos latest offerings on the Switch being available.. But if you're talking stuff like Super Mario Bros.. Damn straight I think games like that should be available to anyone and at no cost, they already made their money from that old game ten times over by now, and even if we only have a "licence" to play these games by law, we still have FAIR USAGE laws that retain people to still play copies of their old games, if they had a licence to play the original (I.E an original copy)

@Kalmaro And even in terms of modern games, like Switch games

Hell, I like to replay the games I've played on my Switch, with internal resolution bumped up for up to 4k internal resolution, and the ability to back up my games that I 'paid' for.. That's one of the good things about emulation

Ever played gamecube games with native 16:9 using gecko codes?

Ever played Gamecube games online with flawless netcode thanks to using a similair system as GGPO?

Ever played Metroid Prime at 60fps thanks to 60fps hacks? Or PD and GE on n64 at 60fps and kb/m support thanks for hacks?

Or what about Super Mario 64? That game has fully fledged expansions with new levels thanks for roms, emulating and mods.

These are all GOOD things.

@Kalmaro Sorry for ranting off at you

It's not your fault, and I don't have any problems with you and your opinions, its just something I'm very passionate about, and a lot of other people are as well ^_^

But in terms of modern Switch games I can see the issue, with their older IPs going back decades I don't see it as an issue but more just dedicated fans, and modders who do a lot of great work out of passion for great games

@Doktor-Mandrake Whoa, wasn't expecting to bring up slavery into this, I didn't even bring up the law. I just said that we can agree that theft is bad, that's a moral argument. Being a person of African heritage I can assure you that I do not agree with all the laws we had in the past in the US.

Stealing is wrong, regardless of what laws say. We all know this. Which leads to my point that we can't just take something from someone else in the name of preservation.

"I think games like that should be available to anyone and at no cost, they already made their money from that old game ten times over by now,"

And how much money should they be allowed to make then? At what point do we tell people "alright, you've made enough, your game is now free."

"we still have FAIR USAGE laws that retain people to still play copies of their old games, if they had a licence to play the original (I.E an original copy)"

I never said people can't play thier games or make copies of them, I said as much (basically) in the first comment in this article.

If you own a game and make a copy of it to do play with on an emulator or what have you, that's your right, you bought the game. I never disputed that.

@Kalmaro But none of that addresses one of my key points

And that was it's not only Nintendo's own IP's they go after, they go after others as well

I know this first hand, as some sites they shut down a year or two ago didn't even host Nintendo IPs like Mario, Zelda ect. but it still got shutdown by Nintendo regardless.

And in those cases, no, they don't own those games, and have no right to remove those roms.

It's interesting though, because for me personally, I've thrown more money at Nintendo 'because' of emulation.. Last Nintendo console I owned before my Switch was an N64, but because I've enjoyed countless Gamecube games and such, I threw money at them, got a Switch and now own about 30 odd games on the thing

I have all these classic mini consoles too, even though I already had a Raspberry Pi3 so had no need to buy them, but they look nice on my shelf and I wanted to show my support.

Roms are just ways for people to experience new games, new games that might make them Nintendo fans.

Again, like I said.. I want people to be able to play these games in 200 years from now.. Nintendo might not even be around by then, but those roms probably will be.

@Doktor-Mandrake If Nintendo is shutting down sites for putting out stuff that does not even belong to Nintendo, thenyeah, that's odd but I don't see how that coincides with what we are talking about. Is it wrong? I wouldn't say so exactly but it's kinda odd. Unless the site targeted was only doing abandonware games that no one owned at all, I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

If you like your roms then fine, I've said before that I don't mind roms that people made themselves from games they purchased. When folks distribute those roms while the game itself is still being sold or owned by another company, I have issues.

I'd like Nintendo games to be around forever as well, all games really. However, it's up to them to decide what happens to said games while they still own it.

If, 200 years from now, Nintendo is dead and no one owns the games anymore then I could care less what people do with those roms.

@strider100x Rather than throw insults, why don't you point out what you have a disagreement with me on?

@Kalmaro what insult i just told u to read it, and if u had u would understand.

@strider100x Mybad, I didn't know asking if people are dumb was a compliment.

what? just forget i said anything.

Gotta sue 'em all!