I just found this site copyclones.com selling backup games for 2 bucks a piece. They have PS2, dreamcast, and PSone but no Xbox though.
Wonder how sony isn't pissed about this or they havent found it.
Printable View
I just found this site copyclones.com selling backup games for 2 bucks a piece. They have PS2, dreamcast, and PSone but no Xbox though.
Wonder how sony isn't pissed about this or they havent found it.
Nope it isn't and guess what? I have half the mind to report them to Sony's piracy department.
You should report them (if that is what you mean). They probaly made a good profit off it to. Actually it comes to be the same price as making them yourself. Blank DVDs are around two bucks arent they and renting a game costs like 6 bucks. Dreamcast part is a rip though. Expically the Dreamsnes one.Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
Nope it isn't and guess what? I have half the mind to report them to Sony's piracy department.
I just reported them. Two main reasons. I don't swing with current generation game sharing (PS2) and them selling it is just plain wrong.
I agree with mushindo about next-gen emulation. This site is just going to argue that they are selling the service, not the backups. But I have a feeling that this site isnt going to be around much longer. All thanks to mushindo at EP. lol
That seems like irony at its best to me. I do agree with the next gen stuff though. Even though I want a modchip on my PS2 I will still buy new games.
Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
I just reported them. Two main reasons. I don't swing with current generation game sharing (PS2) and them selling it is just plain wrong.
Good for you.
Stuff like that hurts people like us who are into emulation. People will think we all do this. And I don't think anyone here would ever think of selling a copied game.
I know emulation and downloading hundreds of roms isn't exactly legal too, but I think there is a line that we don't cross...
Besides how many of us actually play all these games? I mean alot of us here have hundreds even thousands of roms and iso's. Heh it's almost like a game, like collecting pokemon cards or something. We're doing it to socialize in a way. And I think thats alot better than bootlegging.
sorry for rambling and stuff, I'm tired :cry:
I actually do have thousands upon thousands of roms that I haven't played. I also have a few ISOs. It is almost like trading cards to me lol. I have several goodsets and I probably only play 5-6 out of each one regularly. I just dont' have the time.
To be honest, Sony's Piracy department would have a few things to say to us if they found out about it. Here's today's amazing fact:
Over here, in India they sell these type of copied games everywhere. They're available all over the grey market, and what's funny is the fact that there are NO ORIGINALS available.
We dont have a market for these things, the copied games are imported from China and brought here and sold to people who have PS1's and PS2's...
Sony can't do much since they don't market the PS2 over here (it's never really been officially released as such..).
I report all authors who sell their emulators too. Yes yes, the irony. Don't get me started on semantics, you will be reading for a long time ;) The major and real difference is this; emulation, including distribution of dead games, is meant to preserve classics and turds. If sony, nintendo, microsoft, sega, etc etc, were to replace every single component that they have released then perhaps emulation wouldn't be needed. As it is though, they do not and simply will not after a certain amount of time. When I buy a used game does it help them? No it does not. Especially if it isn't being sold any longer, since the person selling would have to buy another used copy from a private user. I have had to replace 4 PSones (2 modded) and 3 PS2s (1 modded) Does that sound like fair business practice? Selling cheap hardware that simply cannot sustain long term longevity and expect for them to never be immortalized for the very people that support them? I don't think so. Here enters emulation. I own every game (exception to most arcade games, but I am slowly collecting them :P ) that I share. It doesn't make it any more justified since I own them, but I do support the people I may or may not be hurting. I share because lets face it, production for the game has ceased. Why let future generations suffer and wait for a possible half-assed re-release? Also, when I buy a game I do not sign a physical contract agreeing to their terms. I did not sign a contract with the government to be "law abiding" I have every right to be a hypocrite, and damn, I will use that right :D What that site and others do is simply make money off someone elses creation and hard work while doing nothing in return, except stealing prospective buyers when they sell cheap copies of current software/hardware. If the game companies had half a brain and not a lead ass, they would jump onto the emulation wagon and then give what the public wants and make a buck while they are at it. (lol, lets not get into that ok peoples? (: )
I agree with the report about the people who sell pirated games. I can't stand this either.
Though reporting people who sell their own emulators is wrong, and isn't really going to achieve anything. Emulators are not illegal - so unless the person was including a BIOS (or roms) and charging then there is nothing to report.
Nintendo recently stopped a GBA emulator on the Tapwave Zodiac though. However I believe this was stopped via a patents issue other than anything else.
amen to that mushindo.
have i mentioned lately that i love you?
An emulator involves a lot of work yes, but please, selling it? That is clearly to just acheive financial gain from someone elses hard work. Emulation is a hobby, not a means for support. Take that hard work and create your own hardware/software and sell your own games; don't mooch off of others and expect to be paid.
It is actually legal to sell emulators. Bleem! and VGS were considered legal by the courts. The only reason they went out of business is because of the court costs they had to pay to defend themselves from Sony's lawyers.
Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
An emulator involves a lot of work yes, but please, selling it? That is clearly to just acheive financial gain from someone elses hard work. Emulation is a hobby, not a means for support. Take that hard work and create your own hardware/software and sell your own games; don't mooch off of others and expect to be paid.
Ahem yes, well.
They have every right to ask for money for their emulators.
Programmers don't pay the bills on intellectual gratification alone.
Months, or even years of work go into an emulator, and this is all work which they are not getting paid for.
You could argue that "No one forced you to write an emulator.", but the fact is they did, and invested a good amount of resources into it.
Why should they get slammed for asking for a little financial support in providing a program to the community.
Also, if you don't want to pay for an emulator, there are plenty of free ones around anyway.
Plus, the first thing that gets warez'ed is a non-free emulator =P.
I beg your pardon, it retailed for $299. Selling expensive & useless hardware would be the right phrase =P.Quote:
Selling cheap hardware..
Also, that website has a pretty good disclaimer. I took a moment to read it. Maybe I'll copy some of it and put it on EP.
I don't really care for disclaimers but to be honest, since we've put one up, we haven't had any trouble from the IDSA or any other agency.. otherwise we used to get weekly threats...
hey w8, isn't it legal to give people the opportunity to buy the games that the buyer itself owns an original of? I mean lets take EP for example, in EP's disclaimer it says, and i quote:Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
Nope it isn't and guess what? I have half the mind to report them to Sony's piracy department.
"The files listed herein are only for personal use, personal as in for the staff of emuparadise and it's subsidiaries as they are for our own legal backing up solution,"
So, what the disclaimer is saying, is that the crew of EP has an original copy of ALL the games on the site? I find that VERY hard to believe....
We owe you for this. People think that gamers such as ourselves, who download and I quote "Old Games" (end quote), are pirates but in reality we are just downloading games that companies like nintento and sony find no longer turn a profit and are of no use to them.Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
I just reported them. Two main reasons. I don't swing with current generation game sharing (PS2) and them selling it is just plain wrong.
It's people that "sell" newer games that give us a bad rep and we all owe mushindo for stoping this. PROPS TO THE MAN:popcorn:
True ture, but you wanna kn ow wo made the first NES and SNES emulators? Nintendo. Wanna know who made the first N64 and PSone emulators and ROMS? Nintento and Sony.Quote:
Originally posted by Ifrit
hey w8, isn't it legal to give people the opportunity to buy the games that the buyer itself owns an original of? I mean lets take EP for example, in EP's disclaimer it says, and i quote:
"The files listed herein are only for personal use, personal as in for the staff of emuparadise and it's subsidiaries as they are for our own legal backing up solution,"
So, what the disclaimer is saying, is that the crew of EP has an original copy of ALL the games on the site? I find that VERY hard to believe....
It's as I said, these are old games that no longer turn a profit and big-name companies had no use for. THESE ARE ADVERTISEMENTS , if you play a good game thats as old as SNES, your gonna look for nintendos newer games and believe they might be good because of what you saw on a downloaded ROM.
It's that simple.
(And finally I got to lazy to edit my post, so heres it double.)Quote:
Originally posted by ZeikHunter
amen to that mushindo.
have i mentioned lately that i love you?
I to, am experincing a uncontrolable love for mushindo right now, could it be that she/he is the first politicaly sane human bein that I' ve quoted in a long time? Or could his/her avatar be hot...
Nintendo and Sony never made the first emulators......they just made the hardware.
See, emulators fool games into thinking that they are running on the authentic hardware of the console.
And thats different from making the emulators themselves how?Quote:
Originally posted by Gospel
Nintendo and Sony never made the first emulators......they just made the hardware.
Eh? Because the hardware isn't in itself an emulator.Quote:
Originally posted by DJHavoc
And thats different from making the emulators themselves how?
Well actually sony and nintendo DID release the first emulators for their systems...only not publicly...as a development package for game companies that could be purchased with a license from sony or nintendo...it didn't take long, however; for them to end up on kazaa...
Well you see they have also created emulators for the public. One of them is for PS, yes PS. THe PS2 plays ps games by emulating them. If you try to play some of the older PS games on it, they wont run. Also maybe the gba also emulates Gb, just maybeQuote:
Originally posted by DJHavoc
And thats different from making the emulators themselves how?
I find it VERY hard to believe that they are emulating PSX on the PS2. I may be off but is it not correct to say the processing power/specs of the PS2 are MUCH lower than that of a PC? And would it not also be fair to say that it would take MUCH more power than it has for that emulation?Quote:
Originally posted by Themikemachine
Well you see they have also created emulators for the public. One of them is for PS, yes PS. THe PS2 plays ps games by emulating them. If you try to play some of the older PS games on it, they wont run. Also maybe the gba also emulates Gb, just maybe
And if my lack of knowledge on hardware is totally off than this simple argument. Why would they emulate something when they could EASILY port it to the new system?
precisely, sony has no need to emulate ps on ps2, the only thing they need to do is port it + add a graphic filter (which the ps2 has)Quote:
Originally posted by Xaenn
I find it VERY hard to believe that they are emulating PSX on the PS2. I may be off but is it not correct to say the processing power/specs of the PS2 are MUCH lower than that of a PC? And would it not also be fair to say that it would take MUCH more power than it has for that emulation?
And if my lack of knowledge on hardware is totally off than this simple argument. Why would they emulate something when they could EASILY port it to the new system?
and p00f, game works + looks nicer :)
Am I the only one who thinks reporting this person is wrong. Sure, selling games is pretty low, but those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
Commercial software as well as Homebrewed software is made by software development kits(SDK), or "debug" units which are released by the makers to companies and V.I.P. to create and test software.
Selling these units is illegal. Distributing "homebrewed software" to the public in a sense is illegal, since they are made by coding that was produced by the distributor. (Example M$, Sega, Sony, Nintendo)
Commercial software is illegal to sell "boot-legged"; some commercial software is even illegal to resell, for example anything that was distributed for free, demos, and/or trials.
Emulators are made the same way. Only those that are made from open source software, �available to the public�, are legal for distribution but once they are compiled to be read by certain hardware it is illegal.
As for discontinued software, you are free to do what you like with it, but they are not allowed to be resold.
ROMs are legal to acquire; but not to resell. If you own the original games, backing it up to protect from damage, and personal storage is legal, well for now it is until more laws are passed.
There is nothing wrong with backing up software as long as you own it.
If games are out of production, the only way to keep it in circulation would be to use emulation methods, as for over the years, the original games would have been abused, lost, in private collections, and/or trashed.
Emulators are used to imitate the function of another system by achieving the same results as the imitated system. Selling emulators is the same as selling bootlegged software. Emulators are not just software; they can be hardware as well for example a cable descrambler box imitates the cable television signal, they are emulators also. The people whom make these emulators are breaking the law, and agreements which companies trusted them with. So if they would like to be named, and even sell their creations, they will get double time, or at least double fined by their trusties and most definitely by the government.
Porting and Re-releasing are totally different issues, even though these same rules apply, one would have to simply get permission from the company to do it, and viola we have a ported game. Porting still uses the same coding which was once used in the original game; thus it will be illegal to do without permission. Since after all the creators have full rights to their games. But I do not think companies will give you a hard time if you happened to port something, they just might force you to hand over your work or else.
Systems like the Playstation 2, and Gameboy Advance, do not emulate, they simply recognize the coding (making it backwards compatible) of previous software. For those of you whom need examples, for say you bought a game that was created to run on Windows 95, but you do not have Windows 95. Your Windows XP can still recognize that software flawlessly. Another great example would be low-fi vhs tapes can be recognized by high-fi tape players. For you modern junkies another example would be, some DVD players can recognize laserdiscs, mp3, and music compact disks. They were simply programmed to recognize the same coding, not to emulate.
My Conclusion, anyone whom sells anything other than a service is a fraud. Capitalism is not the way to go, if you want to strike it rich, labor for your money.
Someone writes a book and gets it published. Then someone takes the same book, puts a different cover on it and says it is theirs and they deserve money from it since they undertook the arduous task of creating a better cover. Who deserves the money? I would think that the original author clearly wins the case. Then, a local library buys the book and allows it to be viewed by the public for free. See where I am going with this?
I do not understand what you mean, or where you are going.Quote:
Originally posted by mushindo
Someone writes a book and gets it published. Then someone takes the same book, puts a different cover on it and says it is theirs and they deserve money from it since they undertook the arduous task of creating a better cover. Who deserves the money? I would think that the original author clearly wins the case. Then, a local library buys the book and allows it to be viewed by the public for free. See where I am going with this?
I would say no one gets money; this is an excellent example for me to elaborate upon.
The only person I would believe should get money (or some sort of trade) would be the author, whom was traded for his service. From that point on, no one else gets anything, doesn�t matter if that books sells one copy or ten thousand copies, the author was already given something for his service. End of story. If the trader would like to mass produce it, go ahead, but free of charge.
I am a strong believer in free trade, and a free economy. Not the greedy capitalist way which you are subjecting. It wasn�t until the turn of the century that our societies have become like this, all this crap about copywriting, trademarks, patenting, it is all just one big scam to make the richer get rich and the poor get poorer. If you want to make something, fine, that is your own doing, distribute it to the public as you like. It is just stupid capitalist that make everyone else�s lives a living hell. Did you know Johann Gutenberg created the printing press centries ago? Well someone else patented it in the late 1800�s, and guess whom gets credit for it? During the civil war the soilders ate peanut porage. But someone gets credit for giving it the name �peanut butter�. Bill gates bought DOS off of a �friend� for pocket change, and then sells it for millions.
Books are mainly ideas, and stories. The day I pay for someone elses words is the day I laugh myself to death. Just like painting pictures it is an art, not a business and should not be treated like one. Services are used to better better, as in a nation, you should not make money for raising your motivation or personal status.
This is how the world should be:
I�ll make you a sword, if you grow me some patattos.
Help me build my house, and I will help you build yours.
Not like this:
Bow down before me, and give me all your money just so you can breath my air.
From reading this it seems you have your rom law correct for one territory, but perhaps not another. The backup laws are different dependent on where you are situated.
As for any emulator being illegal, you are wrong (as has been proved in several court cases), unless I misread what you were stating. And at this time of day, that's eminently possible.
Yes, I understand about laws being different. But mainly, these people whom get in trouble and do these things are those whom live in the countries where it is illegal. America and most of europe, also including Japan and other major countries part of NATO, and the EU also have these laws.Quote:
Originally posted by Del_Boy
From reading this it seems you have your rom law correct for one territory, but perhaps not another. The backup laws are different dependent on where you are situated.
As for any emulator being illegal, you are wrong (as has been proved in several court cases), unless I misread what you were stating. And at this time of day, that's eminently possible.
Unless the emulator was made using different coding and nothing could be traced back to the original source, then it would be legal but that is nearly impossible.
Don't take my word for it:
Go ahead you live in sweden (a country with these laws), mass produce CDs with emulators on them and sell them to the public, tell me that the police nor anyone else will not do anything to do.
Your vision of a world is communism in theory. I am in support of emulation, not the capitalist proliferation of it. The analogy is simple. I am sure others will understand it. You seem to be a close minded fellow so when you read it, I assume you thought I was against emulation. I am only against selling other people's work. Read my previous posts and you'll see. I am all for communism theory. I think everything should be shared. However, the human race is selfish and ignorant. That is why when communism theory is implented it falls apart fast and becomes twisted. This entire thread consists of diatribes. Which all comes down to semantics. It just all depends on where you draw the line and what analogies you reference off of.
I did not say you were against emulation nor did I even think it.
Communism... That is what I am totally against.
Communism is when the government has complete control over everything. The government profits off of others work; the citizens labor.
Do you not know your history? Cuba, China, Russia, all communist.
All disarmed their citizens, military was the government every single one of those countries was a police state, they could do anything they wanted at anytime. Millions were killed, without any warnings all at. You do not get the right to a fair trial; you are killed on the spot if suspected of a crime. They control the population by brainwashing. All businesses, factories, and all housing is owned by the government. They say whom can stay and whom has to go. All funding went to the government, the citizens go without food and water. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
If Communism is your ideal government, sorry to tell you this but you have been mislead.
COMMUNISM THEORY. Not communism as the world has seen. Do you know how to interpret sentences properly?
What is your COMMUNISM THEORY then?
As many dictionaries and websites will tell you:
The communism theory is elimination of private property and complete government control of the econmony. A totalitarian system. Marxism-Leninism ideology. A theory used by tyrants.
This is what I just explained... and what we have seen in the world.
communism would work in theory, if humans wernt so greedy/selfish. thats why i can say i believe in communism, but i do not actively persue the persue the spread of it.. if i did, with the job i do, it'd be a bad thing, hehe.
btw, mushindo, read his location, that might tell you something of the caliber of person he is
I am well aware of his character Zeik ;) It's rather obvious. :P
Here is a dictionary definition of communism.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Why don't you read the dictionary before you make references to it PT :rolleyes:
Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary [Tenth collegiate edition]
1. a theory advocating elimination of private property
2. a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
besides mr. turner, a ditionary is, by definition, unbiased, so cannot use the word "tyrant" when referring to anything other than sysnomyms of 'tyrant'