ROM translation not illegal?

[Johan_H]

All I get from this is that if Nintendo decided to make some kinda move against the scene, there would be a lot of betrayals around here.
...
there are many wolves in sheep's clothing about.

The hell? We're talking about whether ROMhacking is legal, not the morality of it, or so I thought at least. Just about everyone here obviously don't have a problem with ROMhacking or pirating of old video games.

[Joe Camacho]

All I get from this is that if Nintendo decided to make some kinda move against the scene, there would be a lot of betrayals around here. My understand of human nature is that acute, at least.

Apparently you haven't heard that the Attorney General is trying to link software piracy to terrorism.... That's never been done before and it is the beginning of a change in attitude towards copyright infringement.

I've made my case, even if I don't have the organization to prove it has been made. In any case, I'm done with this thread. I am this certain though: there are many wolves in sheep's clothing about.

Or maybe we just know the consequences of our actions and not try to pull any kind of bullshit to justify it.

We know what we are doing downloading roms and applying translation patches on rom images, we just don't try to state that we have a right to do so.

And I after 5 seconds of searching, the Attorney General is linking piracy as a way to FUND terrorism, just like Drug Dealing or Petroleum Sales, so no little guy, you won't be taken to Guantanamo because you are downloading a JRPG rom for a 10 year old console.

[Gil_Hamilton]

And I after 5 seconds of searching, the Attorney General is linking piracy as a way to FUND terrorism, just like Drug Dealing or Petroleum Sales, so no little guy, you won't be taken to Guantanamo because you are downloading a JRPG rom for a 10 year old console.

Though we can dream of an exception for him.

[declan]

Code: Select all

 
%macro awesome 1-* 
  push edx 
%rep %0 
  xor edx,edx 
  mov eax,[%1] 
  div dword[%1+4] 
  mov [%1],edx 
  %rotate 1 
  or [%1],eax 
  cmp eax,1 
  je %%exit 
  %rotate -1 
  sub eax,[%1] 
  adc dword[%1],0 
  jnz %%exit 
  %rotate 1 
%endrep 
%%exit 
  pop edx 
%endmacro

... "you probably wouldn't understand anyway."

HEY! i can read assembly!
just don't ask me to translate it

[Deathlike2]

All I get from this is that if Nintendo decided to make some kinda move against the scene, there would be a lot of betrayals around here. My understand of human nature is that acute, at least.

Apparently you haven't heard that the Attorney General is trying to link software piracy to terrorism.... That's never been done before and it is the beginning of a change in attitude towards copyright infringement.

I've made my case, even if I don't have the organization to prove it has been made. In any case, I'm done with this thread. I am this certain though: there are many wolves in sheep's clothing about.

Or maybe we just know the consequences of our actions and not try to pull any kind of bullshit to justify it.

We know what we are doing downloading roms and applying translation patches on rom images, we just don't try to state that we have a right to do so.

Exactly. Besides, there are no wolves in sheep's clothing... there's just one guy with paranoid delusions of conspiracies in the asylum known as the zboard.

I'll give Oskar credit, he's smart enough not to open his mouth anymore. That should get him some award.

And I after 5 seconds of searching, the Attorney General is linking piracy as a way to FUND terrorism, just like Drug Dealing or Petroleum Sales, so no little guy, you won't be taken to Guantanamo because you are downloading a JRPG rom for a 10 year old console.

That's the closest thing to being farfetched that I've ever heard... it is a stretch at best, just like OJ trying to find the real killers...

[I.S.T.]

All I get from this is that if Nintendo decided to make some kinda move against the scene, there would be a lot of betrayals around here. My understand of human nature is that acute, at least.

Apparently you haven't heard that the Attorney General is trying to link software piracy to terrorism.... That's never been done before and it is the beginning of a change in attitude towards copyright infringement.

I've made my case, even if I don't have the organization to prove it has been made. In any case, I'm done with this thread. I am this certain though: there are many wolves in sheep's clothing about.

Congratulations! You just won this year's Academy Award for Best Stupidity of The Year! What do you plan on doing after this?

tcaudilllg2: I'm going to continue to shit up these boards with my incredible dumbassness!

[grinvader]

Hey, you insulted me first.

I know that, heh.

No I don't understand the awesome... the % signs in particular have me perplexed.

I'd say they are what you called "creative fire". ;p

[tcaudilllg2]

I looked up the U.S. copyright law. After skimming the entire thing, I've come to the conclusion that Berne DOES NOT APPLY to the U.S.; in fact, the U.S. makes the point very clear that those aspects of Berne which are not implemented specifically by statute are not a part of the U.S. code and moreover, U.S. citizens are indemnified against them.

Which means, ROM hacks that are implemented via patch are completely legal, in the U.S. at least. (that's assuming they don't use copyrighted graphics and music, of course).

[corronchilejano]

Is there a special reason why you keep TRYING to go around this?

[I.S.T.]

Is there a special reason why you keep TRYING to go around this?

He's a frigging idiot who is trying to justify his actions because he feels unclean.

Edit: Also, WIKIPEDIA PROVES YOU WRONG YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... stic_Works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... ct_of_1988

http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Ber ... ntion.html

[tcaudilllg2]

Is there a special reason why you keep TRYING to go around this?

He's a frigging idiot who is trying to justify his actions because he feels unclean.

Edit: Also, WIKIPEDIA PROVES YOU WRONG YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... stic_Works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... ct_of_1988

http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Ber ... ntion.html

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

That's all.

As for Berne specifically:

(c) Effect of Berne Convention. — No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.

Point blank: Berne doesn't matter. If you knew anything about U.S. politics you wouldn't be questioning the fact. (the conservatives, in particular, hate foreign law treaties).

And the moral is... (there are three):
1) don't believe everything you hear on Wikipedia
2) check your damn sources
3) willful ignorance never prospers....

[DancemasterGlenn]

3) willful ignorance never prospers....

Oh my god...

Batman?

[I.S.T.]

Is there a special reason why you keep TRYING to go around this?

He's a frigging idiot who is trying to justify his actions because he feels unclean.

Edit: Also, WIKIPEDIA PROVES YOU WRONG YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... stic_Works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... ct_of_1988

http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Ber ... ntion.html

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

That's all.

As for Berne specifically:

(c) Effect of Berne Convention. — No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.

Point blank: Berne doesn't matter. If you knew anything about U.S. politics you wouldn't be questioning the fact. (the conservatives, in particular, hate foreign law treaties).

And the moral is... (there are three):
1) don't believe everything you hear on Wikipedia
2) check your damn sources
3) willful ignorance never prospers....

Did you even READ my third link? It's a copy of the bill that was passed!

[tcaudilllg2]

Yes, I did. Did you?

You do realize that the damn U.S. COPYRIGHT CODE is the LAST WORD and that ALL THAT BILL DID WAS MAKE CHANGES TO THAT SAME CODE?

Read it. For crying out loud, read it.

Additionally, you're missing the cultural context. From the U.S. PoV, prohibiting translations is redundant, because copyright has already been granted to the rights holder. Thus, if a person owns a legitimate copy of said work, they already own the copy and can read it any which way they damn well please. Why say the rights holder retains rights of translation when they already have the exclusive right to distribute their material?

Do you live in the United States? I warn you, the U.S. Code has never been excessively technical. What matters is not what the code says, but how a majority of judges would interpret it. U.S. lawmakers do not haggle over language except in a very few politically sensitve cases. (of which imports of video games from Japan is not)

[I.S.T.]

I'm saying it overrides it...

[funkyass]

tcaudilllg2, you are all over the place.

simply because the method used to distribute them are legal, doesn't make the translation itself legal.

if you want to limit this non-sense of yours to the USA, consider that translations are derivate works.

ponder that for a sec. Ponder this also: copyright holders are not required to act upon copyright violations.

[Deathlike2]

funkyass, you're on target. He's trying to justify it somehow ignoring important details in his argument.

Luckily he's not a lawyer, and we'll just sic Joe on him.

[tcaudilllg2]

I'm saying it overrides it...

Actually that's a sticking point with a lot of U.S. treaty obligations. TIME had an article about how the U.S. law system doesn't mix well with treaties yesterday. They made the point that the U.S. often adopts "treaties" by passing bills instead of trying to get them through 2/3 of the Senate.

Here's another page on the subject.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html

And here's one that may just set it to rest completely. (this one surprised me)
http://www.accurapid.com/journal/33copyright.htm

Apparently the work of localizing is itself intellectual. Who knew? (I'll bet byuu did).

You've got to mince the logic very carefully to make sense of it: the translation is not the content, but a formula of sorts for converting the content between languages. Derivative works may or may not be party to the rights holder, depending on the situation. Note that although the translator cannot produce copies of the work without the rights holder's consent, neither can the rights holder lay claim to the translation nor can they prevent new translations from being produced, because again, the translation is a logical device.

As for the companies, they may be silent because they don't think they really have a case in any event. But we'd have to see someone sell a translation to know for sure.

[sweener2001]

SHUT UP ALREADY

[tcaudilllg2]

SHUT UP ALREADY

Do you think you're cute?

[Deathlike2]

Apparently the work of localizing is itself intellectual. Who knew? (I'll bet byuu did).

I bet byuu has a quite a better understanding than you do on all of this, but you would ignore what he has to say just the same.

[tcaudilllg2]

Apparently the work of localizing is itself intellectual. Who knew? (I'll bet byuu did).

I bet byuu has a quite a better understanding than you do on all of this, but you would ignore what he has to say just the same.

I would never ignore another progressive.

[sweener2001]

maybe, if that gets you to shut up.

here's a hint. you're contributing as much to this topic as i am

this topic is beyond moot. nobody cares, and now you're not even talking about it anymore. instead, you're trying to circle-jerk yourself back to the original topic, hopefully losing everyone along the way so that you can blind people into thinking you're right.

the only reason this topic hasn't been locked is because this has basically been a joke topic, and you're like a pathetic jester for the mods now. talking about nothing, making huge "logical" leaps of faith, and otherwise being an ignorant douche

[corronchilejano]

I care, I find his denseness very entertaining.

[byuu]

I'm not reading 100 posts. Especially after the "static assembly instead of dynamic recompilation" "thread". I'll just respond to the original point.

According to Wikipedia, software reverse-engineering is permitted under fair use copyright law. ROM patches amount only to reverse-engineering and in no way amount to copying.

Reverse engineering is legal. The reason why is for interoperability -- to avoid vendor lock-in and monopolies. Take a look at companies that reverse engineer those "let's charge $50 for an ink cartridge" chips. They always win in court.

Reverse engineering has held up for emulation, too. Sony never succeeded in court against Bleem! -- they just bled them dry with non-stop trivial lawsuits. Lawyers are expensive.

You'd also be free to reverse engineer a game to understand how it works for an academic point of view, or to implement a clone of it using clean room techniques (obviously losing all the copyrighted sprites and such.)

Reverse engineering does not entitle you to post modifications to copyrighted works, either. It's for making your own works from scratch, using clean-room techniques.

Now, for a fan translation? Good luck. The biggest problem with fan translations are the script translations. The right of translation is guaranteed to the author via the Berne Convention. You won't get around that. Distributing an unauthorized translation of someone else's work that is not in the public domain is illegal. Period. End of discussion.

Ergo, fan translations are not legal. Some of the reasons game companies do not sue over it is because:

A) it would be serious negative publicity.
B) fan translators typically have <$100 to their name.
C) fan translators do not attempt to profit off of their works (this is why I'm hugely against donations and such from fan translations -- see recent Creative driver stuff re: Daniel_K).
D) once the work is released, it's too late anyway -- like DeCSS, it will never leave the internets.
E) they encourage sales of games (debatable.)

I don't know what else you're discussing, but it's irrelevant.