Author Topic: Bad news (please read)  (Read 22458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Renegadist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +15/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2017, 05:59 AM »
It's really too bad things are going down this way, really turns me off for wanting to have anything to do with the ED community now that people are too afraid to post anything. When you look at this entire dilemma it's all a slippery slope, Nintendo hasn't touched the N64 community before because as many have said it's fans making new content for fans for free. Now we have a few people selling these things and everyone throws everything away and runs for the hills leaving everyone else in the dust wondering why people are panicking. I know I already said this and someone already responded but by removing these links to ROMs it only adds an extra step for these people who are selling these hacks. In the end they will continue to sell the hacks, we will continue to lose because people will have to patch everything on their own, and in the end Nintendo can still come in and shut it all down ROMs or No ROMs.

Bottom line is people need to learn to not fear something that has a chance of happening whether or not precautions are taken. Unfortunately as much as I wanted to be part of this community I will be stepping back for awhile until this is resolved. I know that people have it set that Nintendo is going to get them no matter what so no matter what anyone says they will never change their minds but it all seems irrational when you think about it.

I really hope this all turns around because I was looking forward to making this my second home community but after this I don't know anymore.

Thanks.

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2017, 01:59 PM »
Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.

No, you're leaving because I am right, and you're not willing to admit it.

Posting links to things that are not proof of your assertions does not absolve you of the onus of proving your (untrue) assertions.

All I ask is for one (one!) example of what you suggest. Yet you can't even provide that one example to back up your ludicrous claims. If you were right then the last decade would be littered with famous examples, but you're wrong, so the examples don't exist, and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Hence the "I'm the injured party, and I'm out of here" attitude.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 02:29 PM by Kerr Avon »

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2017, 02:28 PM »
It's really too bad things are going down this way, really turns me off for wanting to have anything to do with the ED community now that people are too afraid to post anything. When you look at this entire dilemma it's all a slippery slope, Nintendo hasn't touched the N64 community before because as many have said it's fans making new content for fans for free. Now we have a few people selling these things and everyone throws everything away and runs for the hills leaving everyone else in the dust wondering why people are panicking. I know I already said this and someone already responded but by removing these links to ROMs it only adds an extra step for these people who are selling these hacks. In the end they will continue to sell the hacks, we will continue to lose because people will have to patch everything on their own, and in the end Nintendo can still come in and shut it all down ROMs or No ROMs.

Bottom line is people need to learn to not fear something that has a chance of happening whether or not precautions are taken. Unfortunately as much as I wanted to be part of this community I will be stepping back for awhile until this is resolved. I know that people have it set that Nintendo is going to get them no matter what so no matter what anyone says they will never change their minds but it all seems irrational when you think about it.

I really hope this all turns around because I was looking forward to making this my second home community but after this I don't know anymore.

Thanks.

I'm still not sure what is for the best, whether to bring back the download thread, or to not do so (and even if I don't, there's nothing to stop someone else from starting such a thread). I agree that not having the thread hurts legitimate people more than the (presumably more technical) people who want to make money by making fake cartridges), but against that we have to balance the risks of Nintendo coming down on fake cartridges (since fake cartridges make money) and then quite probably deciding that while they're at it they'll come after the people who hack the games in the first place. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen now. And now that money is involved, then it's *much* more likely that Nintendo will want to get involved. It's still very unlikely that they would do more than throw around a few cease and desist orders (since anything else would cost far more money than they could ever hope to get back from the people hacking the games or the people making the fake cartridges) but it's still a risk we'd be taking. And if we were seen to not be (publicly) passing around the roms, then we'd be less likely to have Nintendo bother us.

I've pm'd Krikzz to see what he thinks. If he's OK with the thread coming back (it is his forum, after all) then unless anyone has any serious objections then I will bring it back, since most people seem to want it. If anyone wants their work to not appear in the thread (which is very understandable, and is your right) then please let me know in this thread, or via pm, and I won't post your work there (and I'll remove any that is already there, of course).

Offline ozidual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Karma: +55/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2017, 04:56 PM »
As for posting ROMs, you could split the difference.  If you keep a list of searchable names, that might be a way around it.  It's not like the ROMs aren't all over the internet.  Knowing that the US Zelda 64 Gamecube ROM is usually called 'Legend of Zelda, The - Ocarina of Time (USA) (GameCube Edition)' helps people find it quickly and easily.  For patches, a list of links to the patches themselves is almost better since they'll get the most up-to-date version.
Projects: Zelda OoT GCtoN64, Doshin the Giant, SSSV, Sim City 64, Getter Love, Shiren
Flash Carts: EverDrive64 2.5, EverDrive N8, SD2SNES

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2017, 08:14 PM »
As for posting ROMs, you could split the difference.  If you keep a list of searchable names, that might be a way around it.  It's not like the ROMs aren't all over the internet.  Knowing that the US Zelda 64 Gamecube ROM is usually called 'Legend of Zelda, The - Ocarina of Time (USA) (GameCube Edition)' helps people find it quickly and easily.  For patches, a list of links to the patches themselves is almost better since they'll get the most up-to-date version.

That's a good idea. But if we did go with that, then the forum would need a good guide (with screenshots) to show new users how to patch roms. I'd make it myself, but I'm away from home (and my N64) until a week on Friday, and I know that if I patch a rom without then testing it on my N64 that it would be corrupt or mispatched somehow, so I don't want to write a guide until I can test the patched rom.

Would you or someone else be willing to write a detailed guide to finding and downloading the right rom, then patching it, please? It wouldn't be extensive, but it would have to easy to follow, as some users might be totally new to unzipping a .zip file, let alone running a patch program.

Offline Aroenai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Karma: +20/-0
  • Sentient Hunk of Green Cheese
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2017, 09:46 PM »
I've been meaning to change the formatting of my topic for a while now anyway. I can write up a guide for patching with screenshots, does anyone care if it's a pdf or does it have to take up space on the actual post? (I wish we had spoiler tags) Ozidual already has a lot of good information on his topic about extracting them from disc. BPS patches prevent you from accidentally applying to the wrong file or making a corrupt/wrong file, unlike IPS which doesn't perform any checks. So you wouldn't have to worry about that.

I agree, Google-fu is easy if the actual rom name and hash value are in the post.
---
Mostly working on Zelda OoT & MM GC patches
Also, breaking region protections
Everdrive 64 v2.01 modified with an UltraCIC II, 64drive HW2

Offline Hexatendo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2017, 07:04 PM »
All I can say is that, I started it.
No, not selling Hacked Roms, but distributing prototypes on this site. I'm sorry that this had to be done, Kerr. I am honestly so speechless that this is all I had to say. No harm intended, just I can't believe this is happening.

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2017, 08:43 PM »
All I can say is that, I started it.
No, not selling Hacked Roms, but distributing prototypes on this site. I'm sorry that this had to be done, Kerr. I am honestly so speechless that this is all I had to say. No harm intended, just I can't believe this is happening.

It's not your fault. Distributing N64 roms isn't exactly legal, but it's as close to harmless as can be, and Nintendo so far haven't seemed too bothered, so we've all just kept our heads down and enjoyed hacked/translated N64 games.

All that's changed is that recently money has started to change hands over N64 roms (albeit only for a few fake cartridges), so we're all wondering if the big N will decide to stomp on the fake cartridge sellers, and if so, will they also try to come down hard on the people who hack the N64 roms. Probably they won't, as there's no way they'll get back even a fraction of the money they'll have to spend on lawyers, so we're almost certainly OK. Almost. Companies can act irrationally though,

I'm still waiting for a reply from Krikzz, to see which way he'd prefer us to act, whether he'd like to see the forums become %200 percent legal by us only posting patches and not actual patched roms, or if he's happy for things to continue as they are, with us posting links to patched roms (unless the particular patched rom is forbidden by the hacker, of course).

Offline Linx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2017, 12:14 AM »
Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.

No, you're leaving because I am right, and you're not willing to admit it.

Posting links to things that are not proof of your assertions does not absolve you of the onus of proving your (untrue) assertions.

All I ask is for one (one!) example of what you suggest. Yet you can't even provide that one example to back up your ludicrous claims. If you were right then the last decade would be littered with famous examples, but you're wrong, so the examples don't exist, and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Hence the "I'm the injured party, and I'm out of here" attitude.

Uh...I hate to jump in on this but why exactly are you arguing with thecavalry on this?  The links he gave, while not examples, outline what would happen in such a case.  I'm not even sure why you're so fixated on an example in the first place when the law is right in front of you.  If you demand one so badly, here it is:

Jr. Pac-man.  Midway created a game based on and using code from Namco's Pac-man without permission in 1983.  Namco then cancelled their licensing agreement with them in 1984 because of that.  Midway had the license to sell Pac-man but not create any new games or characters. It was no different than a simple ROM hack created without permission of the parent company.   Namco then took Jr. Pac-man, ported it to the Atari 2600 in 1986, after their relationship with Midway ended, and made cash off of it without Midway's involvement.

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2017, 01:44 AM »
Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.

No, you're leaving because I am right, and you're not willing to admit it.

Posting links to things that are not proof of your assertions does not absolve you of the onus of proving your (untrue) assertions.

All I ask is for one (one!) example of what you suggest. Yet you can't even provide that one example to back up your ludicrous claims. If you were right then the last decade would be littered with famous examples, but you're wrong, so the examples don't exist, and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Hence the "I'm the injured party, and I'm out of here" attitude.

Uh...I hate to jump in on this but why exactly are you arguing with thecavalry on this?  The links he gave, while not examples, outline what would happen in such a case.  I'm not even sure why you're so fixated on an example in the first place when the law is right in front of you.  If you demand one so badly, here it is:

Jr. Pac-man.  Midway created a game based on and using code from Namco's Pac-man without permission in 1983.  Namco then cancelled their licensing agreement with them in 1984 because of that.  Midway had the license to sell Pac-man but not create any new games or characters. It was no different than a simple ROM hack created without permission of the parent company.   Namco then took Jr. Pac-man, ported it to the Atari 2600 in 1986, after their relationship with Midway ended, and made cash off of it without Midway's involvement.

OK, I'll assume that you're not an alt account by TheCavalry (despite the huge similarities in posting style between this post and his), but if what you say is true about Jr. Pacman, and that this took place against Midway's wishes, and that no money was paid towards Midway, and the copyright of the Jr. Pacman hack was legally judged to be a separate IP to Pacman, and that that IP and copyright was legally judged to belong to Namco even though Miday had created it, then please post a link to the legal facts of the case. Otherwise, you're simply claiming an urban myth as fact.

Please post the legal proof of what you say, I'll read through it, and if it's as you say, and I'll admit I was wrong, of course.

Offline Linx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2017, 04:33 AM »
Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.

No, you're leaving because I am right, and you're not willing to admit it.

Posting links to things that are not proof of your assertions does not absolve you of the onus of proving your (untrue) assertions.

All I ask is for one (one!) example of what you suggest. Yet you can't even provide that one example to back up your ludicrous claims. If you were right then the last decade would be littered with famous examples, but you're wrong, so the examples don't exist, and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Hence the "I'm the injured party, and I'm out of here" attitude.

Uh...I hate to jump in on this but why exactly are you arguing with thecavalry on this?  The links he gave, while not examples, outline what would happen in such a case.  I'm not even sure why you're so fixated on an example in the first place when the law is right in front of you.  If you demand one so badly, here it is:

Jr. Pac-man.  Midway created a game based on and using code from Namco's Pac-man without permission in 1983.  Namco then cancelled their licensing agreement with them in 1984 because of that.  Midway had the license to sell Pac-man but not create any new games or characters. It was no different than a simple ROM hack created without permission of the parent company.   Namco then took Jr. Pac-man, ported it to the Atari 2600 in 1986, after their relationship with Midway ended, and made cash off of it without Midway's involvement.

OK, I'll assume that you're not an alt account by TheCavalry (despite the huge similarities in posting style between this post and his), but if what you say is true about Jr. Pacman, and that this took place against Midway's wishes, and that no money was paid towards Midway, and the copyright of the Jr. Pacman hack was legally judged to be a separate IP to Pacman, and that that IP and copyright was legally judged to belong to Namco even though Miday had created it, then please post a link to the legal facts of the case. Otherwise, you're simply claiming an urban myth as fact.

Please post the legal proof of what you say, I'll read through it, and if it's as you say, and I'll admit I was wrong, of course.

No need for personal attacks to discredit me now.  I've been on this board as a lurker and occasional poster for years.  I'm not some alternate account created in the off chance that there would be an argument about publishing rights 4 years after I joined.  Honestly, I'm not all that interested in the legality of rom hacks anyway.  I just thought I'd give a famous example since you didn't seem to know of it and your last few posts seemed to be very aggressive about finding this example.

As for the case in question:  Of course there are no public legal records.  Why would there be?  Jr. Pac-man is a rom hack of Pac-man.  The character is simply Pac-man wearing a hat.  Midway had no case and they settled without legal interventions.  No company would share private legal documents showing off their behind-the-scenes ugliness to the public.  Especially in the pre-internet days.  In 1984, Namco terminated Midway's license to distribute Namco's IPs.  There is no 'urban legend' about it.  Before 1984, Midway released Namco games in the USA, after this date, Namco did.  Midway is the company that created Jr. Pac-Man (and a few other games that I didn't feel the need to mention).  Jr. Pac-Man only has Bally-Midway's licensing on the original arcade release, without any credit to Namco (unlike every other Namco arcade game), and was only released in Midway's territory, never in Japan.  Despite the separation of Midway and Namco, Namco self-published Jr. Pac-Man a few years later.  This again is no 'urban legend' as we can easily read the release dates and publisher on the Atari box.  So the only question that exists is whether Namco paid any money to Midway for this unauthorized and obviously unwanted creation.  Jr. Pacman bombed in the arcade and had an overall negative reception.  The truth is we will never truly know, but with the information of Namco cutting all ties with their international distributor over this rehash of Pac-Man and the game not being worth anything in the eyes of the public, it seems fairly obvious that Namco wanted nothing to do with it.  But lo and behold, a few years later, when Namco of America was desperate for funds after the video game crash, out comes Jr. Pac-Man to make a quick buck with no credit to Midway whatsoever.

I know that's not enough to convince you.  Simply put, there never will be enough to convince you.  TheCavalry linked you the official laws regarding this situation and I gave you your much demanded example.  So let's just agree to disagree.  I love video game history so I enjoyed typing this and I'd be happy to talk more on it but the legal complexities of this specific topic are things I'm just not that into.

Offline Linx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2017, 04:35 AM »
I also do agree with you regarding removing links to roms/hacks by the way.  It is the safer option and more appropriate option.  Just thought I'd throw that out there.  Sorry about derailing your topic further.

Offline StarDust4Ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2017, 02:00 PM »
You're totally off the mark. But go on then, prove me wrong. Prove that you are right. Name me one unofficial piece of work that became, simply because it was based on an official work, the property of the copyright holder and not the property of the person who made it. If you're right, then companies who made the original IP would always be claiming that the (good) fan made products actually belonged to them, so it would be easy for you to prove that you were right. Just google for some instances of this, and post the results here.
Ms Pacman started life as an unofficial hack of Pacman, originally distributed by General Computing Corp as an expansion board that created a derivative work known as Crazy Otto. Midway, the current distributor of Namco arcade games in the United States, caught wind of the expansion packs GCC were creating and brokered a deal and rebranded it as Ms Pacman. Ms Pacman came to American Arcades in 1981, without permission or blessing of Namco of Japan. And Ms Pacman went on to outsell the original Pacman. Well guess who owns that property now? You guessed it: Namco owns the rights to Ms Pacman. Just look at all those Class of '81 Reunion cabs they got everywhere. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Pac-Man#History

Just one of many examples where the original rights holder usurps control over a derivative work, and profited off of it.

Like Conker, this will be my last post in this thread. Even after posting proof I doubt that you will ever change your perspective and opinion.

No, you're leaving because I am right, and you're not willing to admit it.

Posting links to things that are not proof of your assertions does not absolve you of the onus of proving your (untrue) assertions.

All I ask is for one (one!) example of what you suggest. Yet you can't even provide that one example to back up your ludicrous claims. If you were right then the last decade would be littered with famous examples, but you're wrong, so the examples don't exist, and you can't bring yourself to admit it. Hence the "I'm the injured party, and I'm out of here" attitude.

Jr. Pac-man.  Midway created a game based on and using code from Namco's Pac-man without permission in 1983.  Namco then cancelled their licensing agreement with them in 1984 because of that.  Midway had the license to sell Pac-man but not create any new games or characters. It was no different than a simple ROM hack created without permission of the parent company.   Namco then took Jr. Pac-man, ported it to the Atari 2600 in 1986, after their relationship with Midway ended, and made cash off of it without Midway's involvement.
LOL, great minds think alike! ;)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 02:18 PM by StarDust4Ever »

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2017, 03:58 PM »
No need for personal attacks to discredit me now.  I've been on this board as a lurker and occasional poster for years.  I'm not some alternate account created in the off chance that there would be an argument about publishing rights 4 years after I joined.

If I'm wrong about you being him, then I apologise. But it is strange that he says he's not posting any more, then you appear out of the blue (the only person supporting his point), you post in his style (using such stupid and untrue expressions as " I'm not even sure why you're so fixated on an example in the first place" and " If you demand one so badly, here it is" when I'm clearly not fixated (any intelligent adult would demand proof if he were to be converted in a given believe) or demanding (I was asking simply for proof of TheCavalry's assertion), and then you post 'proof' without a source and expect me to believe it.

If you're posting down at TheCavalry's level, then you can hardly blame me for thinking the obvious, can you?



Quote
  Honestly, I'm not all that interested in the legality of rom hacks anyway.  I just thought I'd give a famous example since you didn't seem to know of it and your last few posts seemed to be very aggressive about finding this example.

As for the case in question:  Of course there are no public legal records.  Why would there be?

Because legal records are kept of all court cases, and in a case such as this (if it did take place) it would set an important legal precedent, and be cited in countless other cases since, when company x was suing person or company y over copyright infringement via new or modded material and company x wanted to gain legal control over this material, this could well be the deciding factor.



Quote
Jr. Pac-man is a rom hack of Pac-man.  The character is simply Pac-man wearing a hat.  Midway had no case and they settled without legal interventions.

Then it's not what The Calvalry was talking about. Midway settled out of court, so it's not a case of them being force by law to do something. Anything could have happened 'behind the scenes'. It might even have been that the contract between Namco and Midway said, explicitly or obliquely, that any alterations to the code became Namco's property, and that Midway didn't understand this when the contract was drawn-up.

Either way, the situation whatever it was, was NOT dictated by a court, so it doesn't prove your, or TheCavalry's contention.



Quote
No company would share private legal documents showing off their behind-the-scenes ugliness to the public.  Especially in the pre-internet days.  In 1984, Namco terminated Midway's license to distribute Namco's IPs.  There is no 'urban legend' about it.

I see. So there's no 'urban legend' about it, but you can't provide legal proof. Understood.

Can you see now why I think you're TheCavalry? You're arguing at precisely his level, with neither proof nor logic to your posts, plus you're the only one who has maintained the same (to me) ridiculous point as him (no one else has argued it), and you don't provide any proof yet expect me to be totally convinced by some random stranger on the internet.



Quote
  Before 1984, Midway released Namco games in the USA, after this date, Namco did.  Midway is the company that created Jr. Pac-Man (and a few other games that I didn't feel the need to mention).  Jr. Pac-Man only has Bally-Midway's licensing on the original arcade release, without any credit to Namco (unlike every other Namco arcade game), and was only released in Midway's territory, never in Japan.  Despite the separation of Midway and Namco, Namco self-published Jr. Pac-Man a few years later.  This again is no 'urban legend' as we can easily read the release dates and publisher on the Atari box.  So the only question that exists is whether Namco paid any money to Midway for this unauthorized and obviously unwanted creation.

And if they did get money for it, then it disproves your point. If it wasn't already totally disproven by the fact that even you admit that there's no legal proof a court case took place.



Quote
Jr. Pacman bombed in the arcade and had an overall negative reception.  The truth is we will never truly know, but with the information of Namco cutting all ties with their international distributor over this rehash of Pac-Man and the game not being worth anything in the eyes of the public, it seems fairly obvious that Namco wanted nothing to do with it.  But lo and behold, a few years later, when Namco of America was desperate for funds after the video game crash, out comes Jr. Pac-Man to make a quick buck with no credit to Midway whatsoever.

Which proves nothing. Other than the fact that the concept of proof is beyond both you and TheCavalry. Look, whether you and him are the same person, or not, can one of you simply provide the proof I've asked for? If not, then stop posting rubbish and expecting people to think that you're somehow right simply because you type a few tangentially-related but unproven sentences.


Quote
I know that's not enough to convince you.  Simply put, there never will be enough to convince you.

Ah, a personal attack. The last refuge of those who know they've lost an argument and aren't big enough to admit it.

And no, my making the logical assumption that you and TheCavalry are the same person was not a personal attack, it was a natural conclusion given how similar your posts, your attitudes, and your lack of proof are.

And why would I be convinced, when even you admit that there's no proof of what you say?


Quote
  TheCavalry linked you the official laws regarding this situation and I gave you your much demanded example.  So let's just agree to disagree.  I love video game history so I enjoyed typing this and I'd be happy to talk more on it but the legal complexities of this specific topic are things I'm just not that into.

You did not give me an example, as you gave no proof. Or if I said that vampires existed, you (according to your logic) would then believe me, since you expect me to believe everything you post even if it sounds totally wrong.

And TheCavalry's links proved nothing, or there'd be hundreds of cases judged on this law, and you could post links to their legal records. But you don't. Why is that?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 04:36 PM by Kerr Avon »

Offline Kerr Avon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Karma: +154/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Bad news (please read)
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2017, 04:20 PM »

Ms Pacman started life as an unofficial hack of Pacman, originally distributed by General Computing Corp as an expansion board that created a derivative work known as Crazy Otto. Midway, the current distributor of Namco arcade games in the United States, caught wind of the expansion packs GCC were creating and brokered a deal and rebranded it as Ms Pacman. Ms Pacman came to American Arcades in 1981, without permission or blessing of Namco of Japan.

And Ms Pacman went on to outsell the original Pacman. Well guess who owns that property now? You guessed it: Namco owns the rights to Ms Pacman. Just look at all those Class of '81 Reunion cabs they got everywhere. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Pac-Man#History


So you're saying that GCC made the hack, sold it to Midway, and Namco eventually took it from them without paying them a penny?

Would you please re-read what you wrote? If Midway did buy the hack, then they were paying money for something that was illegal to sell (the hack). Therefore Midway was breaking the law, and perhaps (I don't know) the copryight would then be judged to go to Namco by default.

If you'd post proof (which none of you "the law is this way" people seem capable of) then we could following the court case's ruling and see the reasoning and the ultimate decision.

But either way, your example is totally different from the original argument, which is that NON-PROFIT game hacks, such as those by Aroenai and ozidual don't belong to Nintendo.

BTW, posting a link to Wikipedia does NOT constitute proof.

Quote
Just one of many examples where the original rights holder usurps control over a derivative work, and profited off of it.

No, it's a bad example made to prove a point, which isn't backed up with proof. You've provided no link to prove that it happened how you said it did, and even if it did, the fact that Midway illegally bought it from GCC means it's a totally different situation to the one we're discussing
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 04:48 PM by Kerr Avon »