Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie

BenMcLean

@bense2k said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

Mega Man Legacy Collection and how to extract the NES roms here

Great find! See also the creator's awesome GDC talk where he tells companies to be sensible about emulation for a change.

People are perfectly happy to pay for ROMs if you give them a way to do it. But make no mistake: we will in fact get the ROMs one way or another, so game companies choices are to 1. Profit from this or 2. Not profit from this. There's no such thing as a third option in which people don't get the ROMs and anyone who thinks there should be can go to hell.

I added the Mega Man Legacy Collection.

Clyde

@benmclean I agree with you in so far that I buy any roms legally I can get my hands on. But to justify using illegal roms by saying "we will get the ROMs one way or the other" is a lame excuse for ignoring other's rights, in this case those of the copyright holders. But if you ignore other's rights that easily, why should anyone respect yours?

BenMcLean

@clyde said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

But to justify using illegal roms by saying "we will get the ROMs one way or the other" is a lame excuse for ignoring other's rights

I think you've got how this works backwards.

I'm not a pirate because I do whatever the hell I want.

I do whatever the hell I want because I'm a pirate. Arr!

in this case those of the copyright holders.

Copyright is intended to promote progress, not stop people from running decades old software on whatever devices they own which they can get working. If game companies aren't selling ROMs then screw them. They should have been on top of this 15 years ago.

But if you ignore other's rights that easily, why should anyone respect yours?

If I'm using DRM then they shouldn't, because DRM takes away individual physical private property rights, which are more important because they are a natural right, while copyright is an artificial convenience.

Now batten down yer hatches, landlubber, or I'll make ye walk the plank! Yo ho ho and a bottle of ROMs!

Slimy

@clyde
How about this one: It is a company's job to compete with what's readily available. I'm not going to try and help them if they're incapable of this. (A good example is SEGA Genesis Classics Collection on Steam. It's basically just a bunch of roms, but I bought it because it presents itself really well and has workshop integration.)

Clyde

@benmclean said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

Copyright is intended to promote progress, not stop people from running decades old software on whatever devices they own which they can get working. If game companies aren't selling ROMs then screw them. They should have been on top of this 15 years ago.

So, every time other's rights don't suit your needs, you think you're right to ignore them? Again, why should anyone respect your rights, then? Do you want to live in a world where everyone's rights are naught the moment they're inconvenient to someone else?

If I'm using DRM then they shouldn't, because DRM takes away individual physical private property rights, which are more important because they are a natural right, while copyright is an artificial convenience.

There are no "natural rights". Rights are granted to you by people (peer groups, societies, organisations etc.) Try to go into the wilderness and see if nature respects your right to life and physical integrity.

Where did you get this differentiation from other than your convenience anyway?

@slimy said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

@clyde
How about this one: It is a company's job to compete with what's readily available. I'm not going to try and help them if they're incapable of this.

I'm not sure what you want to say with this. Do you mean that companies can and should compete with cheap or even free illegal copies of their rightful property? And/or that they have some kind of unwritten (maybe moral) obligation to make their property available? If you didn't mean either of that, please explain it a bit further.

BenMcLean

There are no "natural rights".

Well then, you've got nothing to complain about.

Try to go into the wilderness and see if nature respects your right to life and physical integrity.

It's not the wilderness which makes natural rights natural. It's the law of human nature. [Video Redacted]

mediamogul

@benmclean

This is an all ages forum. Be civil and keep it clean.

Clyde

@benmclean said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

There are no "natural rights".

Well then, you've got nothing to complain about.

So, you agree that there are no natural rights? Then please make your argument again without them. If not, please refrain from rhetoric cop-outs and stay on topic.

It's not the wilderness which makes natural rights natural. It's the law of human nature. [Video Moderated]

So, now there's a "law of human nature" that explains "natural rights" (for humans)? Please explain both without just referring to one another and how they apply to individual private property rights but not to copyright, which was your initial argument.

BenMcLean

@clyde said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

So, you agree that there are no natural rights?

Absolutely not. I'm just saying that if you were correct that there are no natural rights then there could be no artificial rights either, for what is artificial is always formed out of what is natural. And if there are no artificial rights then there's nothing for you to complain about when it comes to copyright.

So, now there's a "law of human nature" that explains "natural rights" (for humans)?

John Locke, Second Treatise on Government. Read it, then come back.

Clyde

@benmclean said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

@clyde said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

So, you agree that there are no natural rights?

Absolutely not. I'm just saying that if you were correct that there are no natural rights then there could be no artificial rights either, for what is artificial is always formed out of what is natural.

So, there have to be natural cars in the world, because without them there couldn't be artificial cars?

And if there are no artificial rights then there's nothing for you to complain about when it comes to copyright.

I complain about your still unexplained claim that individual private property is "natural" whereas copyright is "artificial". Regardless whether you're right or not, you didn't demonstrate your position the least.

So, now there's a "law of human nature" that explains "natural rights" (for humans)?

John Locke, Second Treatise on Government. Read it, then come back.

Now I know where you're coming from. You could've saved us time and effort by mentioning that when I asked you for your source six days ago.

As for Locke, although I, like many thinkers in and since his times, don't share his views because of various flaws and contradictions I see within them, I'll meet you there for the sake of the argument.

As far as I understand Locke (I'm no expert in 17th century philosophy), he sees two ways to gain private property: one's own work and voluntary transfer. So, how can you claim property of roms that you didn't put work into and that weren't given to you voluntarily by their creators? Don't they own them by Locke's laws based on the work they put into them? Shouldn't you respect that property-by-work?

Locke also forbids "spoiling", i.e. taking more than you need. Based on your position, I suspect you may have more roms than you can ever play. If so, isn't that also against Locke's philosophy?

P.S.: Note to the moderators: I don't want to hijack this thread. If our discussion is overly off-topic, please give us a quick sign.

BenMcLean

@clyde said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

So, there have to be natural cars in the world, because without them there couldn't be artificial cars?

Think about what I said. Think real hard. Is that what I said? Is that even anything remotely similar to what I said? Is that really even analogous to what I said?

Obviously not.

Artificial metal constructions like cars are made out of naturally occurring metals. If there were no naturally occurring metals, there could be no artificial metal constructions.

Locke's labor theory of property defines the right of physical private property as a natural right, and it only applies to physical goods. I said that copyright is not a natural right: it is artificially created by a social contract. The purpose of copyright isn't to protect authors: it is to promote progress. (meaning the creation of new works) I'll try and support creators where I can to encourage the creation of new works, but I have no respect for the copyrights of companies who aren't creating new works and aren't even re-releasing their old works in a convenient format.

Clyde

@benmclean said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

Artificial metal constructions like cars are made out of naturally occurring metals. If there were no naturally occurring metals, there could be no artificial metal constructions.

Yes, but that's not analogue to what you said about rights. You stated that artificial rights need prior natural rights, not some other natural resources rights may be derived from, e.g. humans' brains and the practical need to organize their populations. Please demonstrate why artificial rights can't be derived from other natural resources.

Locke's labor theory of property defines the right of physical private property as a natural right, and it only applies to physical goods.

Yes, that's one of the flaws of his 17th century philosophy. Next to proclaim natural laws a priori on the basis of a creator god "giving" the world to humans.

I said that copyright is not a natural right: it is artificially created by a social contract.

So, you're breaking the social contract of your society. By what right? And, like I asked before, why should society respect any of your rights then? Do you want to live in a society where everyone breaks the social contract whenever he or she pleases? (Yes, I'm grazing Kant's categorical imperative here.)

The purpose of copyright isn't to protect authors: it is to promote progress. (meaning the creation of new works) I'll try and support creators where I can to encourage the creation of new works, but I have no respect for the copyrights of companies who aren't creating new works and aren't even re-releasing their old works in a convenient format.

So, you're only ignoring copyrights whose holders are not creating new works? I highly doubt that, because I think most of them do, but if actually so, how do you determine that? Can you give some examples of rom copyright holders that aren't creating new works?

How exactly does (your) convenience matter in the question whether (copy)rights of others should be respected or not? Do others' rights become null and void if they don't cater our convenience? How about your rights when you don't cater others' convenience?

markwkidd

So, you're only ignoring copyrights whose holders are not creating new works? I highly doubt that, because I think most of them do, but if actually so, how do you determine that? Can you give some examples of rom copyright holders that aren't creating new works?

How exactly does (your) convenience matter in the question whether (copy)rights of others should be respected or not? Do others' rights become null and void if they don't cater our convenience? How about your rights when you don't cater others' convenience?

I love to see a good copyright discussion! One of the innovations of modern times, we're still seeing what affect it's having on culture.

It seems relevant to mention that one of the two criteria for determining whether something is "Fair Use" in United States law is whether by making a copy of the intellectual property without permission deprives its creator of income.

Regardless of jurisdiction or the historical application of this fair use criterion, a lot of people who emulate feel do believe that it is morally acceptable to make a copy of a protected work if its owners have abandoned it or for other reasons have chosen not to make the copyrighted work commercially available. There are innumerable examples of this, and a whole term "abandonware" to describe it.

Copying abandonware would probably not be fair use in most cases, but I think it's possible to make an argument that it's in the spirit of copyright law.

dankcushions

@markwkidd that argument is difficult to make these days. many games that were considered abandonware, and so many of the retro console games are now available officially.

even games once thought to be in impossible license hell like windjammers and system shock 1/2 have been reissued.

retro games are only getting (officially) more available, not less.

markwkidd

@dankcushions said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

@markwkidd that argument is difficult to make these days. many games that were considered abandonware, and so many of the retro console games are now available officially.

I think that there is a strong argument to be made that the emulation and abandonware scene with its loose attitude towards copyright on old games is exactly why more of these titles are now available again.

If someone believes in the idea that it is morally neutral or even positive to share unavailable software, it's something to celebrate when the software in question comes back into circulation. And if one has that attitude, one should stop sharing specific software once it is available again! :D

herb_fargus

@markwkidd said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

And if one has that attitude, one should stop sharing specific software once it is available again

There is also an argument to be said of the excessive perpetuity of copyright where original creators have long since been out of the picture and would never see any monetary gain from a renewed release.

More often than not companies squat on IP after it's been resold after bankruptcy multiple times and it's rare if any creators get any percentage of their creation at all as it's typically absorbed into the IP of a company without retaining any personal rights for creation. Imo as far as US law is concerned 70 years is far too long considering the obsolete mediums of many technologies used, and it's only thanks to the so called pirates that any of this is preserved. Because there's one thing that's for sure, companies won't preserve them.

markwkidd

@herb_fargus said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

@markwkidd said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

And if one has that attitude, one should stop sharing specific software once it is available again

There is also an argument to be said of the excessive perpetuity of copyright where original creators have long since been out of the picture and would never see any monetary gain from a renewed release.

More often than not companies squat on IP after it's been resold after bankruptcy multiple times and it's rare if any creators get any percentage of their creation at all as it's typically absorbed into the IP of a company without retaining any personal rights for creation. Imo as far as US law is concerned 70 years is far too long considering the obsolete mediums of many technologies used, and it's only thanks to the so called pirates that any of this is preserved. Because there's one thing that's for sure, companies won't preserve them.

Herb I agree 100% with you on this point. In the early days of copyright when terms were shorter copyright was , in my opinion, better balanced to help encourage the creation of new work.

mediamogul

@herb_fargus said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

Imo as far as US law is concerned 70 years is far too long considering the obsolete mediums of many technologies used

@markwkidd

In the early days of copyright when terms were shorter copyright was , in my opinion, better balanced to help encourage the creation of new work.

Almost no thought goes into US intellectual property protection other than how much money can be made from term extensions. I'm a big proponent of public domain laws and the potential benefits they have to enrich a shared culture in ways we can't immediately imagine. However, I constantly find myself discussing the value of legitimately limited protection with both creators and consumers alike. The creators perspective I at least understand, but when talking about something like the endless extensions Disney is afforded, consumers often seem to have a favorable bias to such companies and will argue that similar entities should be protected in perpetuity for no other reason than sentimentality. The narrow view on this can be frustrating and a smart company can even use this public opinion to sway lawmakers.

One of my hobbies is remastering, restoring and even releasing in a free and limited capacity, films that have never and most likely will never be released in a consumer-ready format for one reason or another. While my efforts and those like me are admittedly illegal, the alternative is that these films will be lost to time and erased from our shared culture forever.

BenMcLean

@clyde said in Where to (legally) acquire content to play on RetroPie:

Yes, but that's not analogue to what you said about rights.

Yes it is.

Please demonstrate why artificial rights can't be derived from other natural resources.

Oh, that's because of David Hume's is-ought gap. There is absolutely no way to logically deduce any moral conclusion using only non-moral premises. In order to get any moral conclusion, you will need a moral premise. So natural rights are the only kind of thing which artificial rights could be constructed out of, since anything else would violate this rule.

Next to proclaim natural laws a priori on the basis of a creator god "giving" the world to humans.

That's the only grounds on which I'd be willing to listen to a defense of copyright, since I do believe in God and I would reject any atheist alternative.

So, you're breaking the social contract of your society. By what right?

I think rights are arranged in a hierarchy, with individual natural rights at the top and artificial rights coming along later. What we've gotten in our society is an "intellectual property" regime so extreme that it ends up undermining other rights which are much more basic. (higher in the hierarchy) Specifically, it's putting companies above people to their benefit and our detriment.

I don't respect copyright in the abstract just because a piece of paper or some company says so. I respect creators and try to support good ones where I can. But I don't let silly, stupid "laws" written by lobbyists undermine individual freedom to think, create or experience history.

markwkidd

How about we add some Intellivision titles? :)

Open source, Creative Commons, and other permissive licenses:

Christmas Carol vs. The Ghost of Christmas Presents (Pseudo-PD) -
http://www.carolvsghost.com/pg_game.html#download-rom
Space Patrol (CC-BY-NC-ND) - http://spacepatrol.info/
4-Tris (GPL) - http://spatula-city.org/~im14u2c/intv/4-tris/

Modern freeware ROMs:

Choplifter - http://intellivision.us/intvgames/chop/chop.php
Stonix - http://www.intellivision.us/intvgames/stonix/stonix.php
Hotel Bunny - http://sebastianmihai.com/main.php?t=115&n=Intellivision-development-Hotel-Bunny
Ultimate Pong - http://intellivisionrevolution.com/ultimatepong
DK Arcade - http://www.carlmuellerjr.com/2016/12/d1k-arcade-rom-download-page-dk-arcade.html?m=1
Ms. Pac Man - http://www.carlmuellerjr.com/2016/06/ms_22.html?m=1
Meteors! - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/273509-meteors/
Stunt Cycle - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/273481-download-stunt-cycle-still-in-development-digital-game-rom-free/
Princess Lydie - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/264032-new-intellivision-homebrew-princess-lydie/