#21213 - aaronphughes - Tue May 25, 2004 10:40 pm
I am not trying to freak people out here, I am just curious about your thoughts on this.
In a free market system, Nintendo has the right to design a system and reap benefits
from it. They have also "decided" to charge a fee, for any company/individual that
would like to develop for that system.
Now the homebrew community has obviously circumvented this fee, by reverse engineering the GBA,
as well as the opcodes that go into each game. From this they have made assemblers, compilers and
emulators, and eventually flash carts to play our own games on the original hardware.
So at which point, if any, do you feel obligated to pay that developers fee? If you really do
enjoy developing for this system, and never actually pay Nintendo anything, how is this different
from pirating a song, and listening to it over and over?
Obviously it was not Nintendo's intention to have us developing for their GBA for free. If it was,
they would have released all the documentation and development tools and not have that developers fee.
Similarly, it is not the intention of the Music Industry to have people download their songs for free, or else
they too would post the MP3's on their sites for free, instead of trying to sell us CD's.
In all honesty, we will all get tired of developing for this system, once newer and better systems come along,
similar to how we will grow sick of listening to pirated songs, once newer ones come out. In the mean time, neither
Nintendo nor the record company made any money from us.
Now I am not concerned about any legal precedents, current copyright laws or anything like that, those things
change based on public opinion and political pressure (ex. abortion laws have flipped flopped)
What I want to know is, your personal opinion, justified only by your own judgment and conclusions.
My own personal opinion is that the Homebrew community does not owe Nintendo anything, as
the majority of us (most likely) have purchased GBA's and numerous games, and wanting to program
for this system was a natural progression/consequence of simply liking this platform.
So, I am curious if anyone else out there feels that evading (avoiding) the developers fee is a form of piracy,
or are we totally justified?
AH
#21214 - notb4dinner - Tue May 25, 2004 11:09 pm
Nintendo sold a product, I bought said product and that's where my responsibility to Nintendo ends. What they intended for me to do with that product has *nothing* to do with it. Once I've paid my money I should be free to use my new possesion however I feel fit (provided I don't break any laws in doing so).
#21217 - keldon - Wed May 26, 2004 1:19 am
It is a touchy issue. These regulations are in place as a mechanism to a specific goal. This mechanism is that of generating money from those that have it in exchange for the right to make even more money from the public by use of Nintendo's product. This mechanism does not include the homebrew community, nor was prepared for it in the 1980's.
It is not illegal to create games without a license - but it is illegal to create games that work, since it requires a license to get the Nintendo logo on your cart legally.
My personal opinion is that the homebrew community own nothing to Nintendo other than thanks for creating a successful platform to develop for.
I will not waste my breath on what the actual law and institutions believe and say to software piracy - as it will only stir up opinions from those who do not agree. And I think we should be wise and have enough respect not to destroy this thread with that sort of talk.
#21223 - sajiimori - Wed May 26, 2004 2:32 am
| Quote: |
I will not waste my breath on what the actual law and institutions believe and say to software piracy - as it will only stir up opinions from those who do not agree. And I think we should be wise and have enough respect not to destroy this thread with that sort of talk.
|
Like it or not, morality is inextricably tied to social and legal issues. Without discussing those issues, all we can do is say how we feel, and this will be a purely emotional thread.
#21237 - Vince - Wed May 26, 2004 8:42 am
Hello to you all,
I also agree with notb4dinner. As long as I paid the money from that system and do not infringe any law, I'm free to do whatever I want with it.
This is the same about Xbox and Linux/FSF progs running on it. You are free to use the HW you legally bought as you wish (again, to the extent permitted by the law).
All in all, I don't think there is a problem since no homebrewn games are sold. If we would do so, we would have to pay Nintendo. The designed a great HW, it is fair for them to have their share if you want to make money on it be selling GBA software.
To answer the original thread question, I think I owe nothing to Nintendo as a homebrewn developer.
Regards,
Vince
#21244 - ampz - Wed May 26, 2004 11:34 am
| keldon wrote: |
| It is not illegal to create games without a license - but it is illegal to create games that work, since it requires a license to get the Nintendo logo on your cart legally. |
Actually, Nintendo is on shaky grounds here. Monopolies are illegal, and if the only way for me to release a game for the GBA is by putting the compressed logo on the cart, then I am most likely allowed to do so.
The law in this area is of course different in different countries.
#21247 - Sweex - Wed May 26, 2004 12:26 pm
I don't see why I should pay any fees. I bougt the GBA and now I am using it. Same as my CD player. I have it, but noone tells me how I MUST use it. I can play guitar, record it onto a blank CD and put it in my player and listen to it. All legal, ain't it? I don't see any different (in concept) between my CD player and my GBA!:-)
I mean, I don't have to pay anyone to play on my guitar, do I?
Oh, and about the monopoly. I think Nintendo is pretty much okay there. Nobody forces you to buy a GBA. And you knew before you bought the GBA you could only play Nintendo, GBA specific games on your device.
Finally; developer fees are peanuts. Sure, it'll be quite an investment but that's exactly what it is; An investment. And on the whole production cost, those fees are really quite low.
_________________
If everything fails, read the manual: If even that fails, post on forum!
#21257 - keldon - Wed May 26, 2004 3:11 pm
| sajiimori wrote: |
| Quote: |
I will not waste my breath on what the actual law and institutions believe and say to software piracy - as it will only stir up opinions from those who do not agree. And I think we should be wise and have enough respect not to destroy this thread with that sort of talk.
|
Like it or not, morality is inextricably tied to social and legal issues. Without discussing those issues, all we can do is say how we feel, and this will be a purely emotional thread. |
Okay then, here is what the law thinks about piracy.
Theft is the deprivation of anothers goods, such as taking their wallet and depriving them of money. This does not happen when downloading a game for free, or developing games for free where you, or your team would not have purchased it had it not been free. However if that game cost money to download or you would have paid for it had it not been illegally free, then it is the person who recieved the money and did not subsidise money to Nintendo who has deprived Nintendo money. In the case of homebrew then the reciept of money for the cost of playing your developed game that has deprived money from Nintendo, or the ability of being able to acquire a license.
---
The reason why personal views aren't taken into account, as with abortion, is that people had their views tailored against this by the media. Abortion at one time was purposely percieved as murder, groups of criminals are treated as organisations.
The law is based on ethics, however this does not mean that the entire countries views are taken into account. If they were then black people and women couldn't vote. In some cases the public just aren't generaly intelligent in the case in question, or are irrationally for or against a cause, again racism and prejudist is an example.
- Keldon Alleyne
#21265 - tepples - Wed May 26, 2004 3:58 pm
| aaronphughes wrote: |
| In a free market system, Nintendo has the right to design a system and reap benefits from it. They have also "decided" to charge a fee, for any company/individual that would like to develop for that system. |
I've already paid fees out the wazoo to Nintendo: - $90 for a GBA (when they were new)
- $200 for a GameCube (when they were new)
- $50 for a Game Boy Player
- $10 for a Game Link cable
- $30 each for two Nintendo GBA games
- Manufacturing fees for 5 third-party games with the Seal
| Quote: |
| Obviously it was not Nintendo's intention to have us developing for their GBA for free. |
Nintendo knew about Sega v. Accolade long before it started work on the Game Boy Color, let alone the Atlantis project that resulted in the GBA. If it wasn't Nintendo's intention to have its system reversed by hobbyists, Nintendo would have implemented some real DRM along the lines of what Capcom put in its CPS-2 arcade system.
| Quote: |
| Similarly, it is not the intention of the Music Industry to have people download their songs for free |
Five labels do not speak for the entire industry. See also Magnatune.com.
| Quote: |
| In all honesty, we will all get tired of developing for this system, once newer and better systems come along |
Then why again are people still developing for the Atari 2600 console?
| Quote: |
| similar to how we will grow sick of listening to pirated songs |
Ever heard of commercial radio stations that still play recordings from the 1940s and 1950s?
| Quote: |
| My own personal opinion is that the Homebrew community does not owe Nintendo anything |
Agreement 100 percent.
| keldon wrote: |
| is illegal to create games that work, since it requires a license to get the Nintendo logo on your cart legally |
Please read the Ninth Circuit appellate decision in Sega v. Accolade and discuss how its precedent affects your statement.
| ampz wrote: |
| Monopolies are illegal |
Almost. Nintendo has no monopoly. If I wanted, I could publish a game designed for Nokia Series 60 phones, Palm PDAs, Pocket PC PDAs, etc. Likewise, Sega had no monopoly around the time it sued Accolade. However, Sega still lost.
| Sweex wrote: |
| I mean, I don't have to pay anyone to play on my guitar, do I? |
If you distribute CDs or you play in public, you need a license from the songwriter. Such licenses come through Harry Fox Agency (for CDs) or from BMI/SESAC/ASCAP (for performances). Due to a few unfortunate court decisions and the high cost of litigation, the courts will assume that you are not the songwriter.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21269 - keldon - Wed May 26, 2004 4:18 pm
For those who can't be bothered to read that article
| Quote: |
| "In this appeal, Sega does not raise a separate claim of copyright infringement with respect to the header file. We therefore reject Sega's belated suggestion that Accolade's incorporation of the code which "unlocks" the Genesis III console is not a fair use." |
#21279 - ScottLininger - Wed May 26, 2004 5:21 pm
Personally, I think that at the point you start making money from homebrew games, you're no longer ethically "safe." Once money comes into the picture, you owe Nintendo something, and that "something" is probably to cease and desist.
Why? Nintendo clearly has the patent on gameboy games. They built the platform and chose to protect it. As creative folks ourselves, we must acknowledge the rights of everyone to keep control over their ideas.
However, until someone starts selling homebrew carts (which to my knowledge still hasn't happened), I see no ethical dilemna with making these games. (There may be a legal dilemna, but I'm not a lawyer.)
The homebrewers out there strengthen the Nintendo platform. The only argument I can see against it is that since I started programming for the gameboy, I've pretty much stopped playing commercial games. ;)
#21293 - notb4dinner - Wed May 26, 2004 10:25 pm
| ScottLininger wrote: |
Personally, I think that at the point you start making money from homebrew games, you're no longer ethically "safe." Once money comes into the picture, you owe Nintendo something, and that "something" is probably to cease and desist.
Why? Nintendo clearly has the patent on gameboy games. They built the platform and chose to protect it. As creative folks ourselves, we must acknowledge the rights of everyone to keep control over their ideas.
|
I'd be surprised if Nintendo holds a patent which you would be infringing by selling GBA games of your own making, if there is I'd argue it's validity - theres nothing new or novel required to make a GBA game.
Although they designed and built the platform that doesn't auomatically give them any right to control what people do with it - including making (and selling) software to run on it. Does anyone feel compelled to pay Apple licensing fees when they develop Macintosh software?
This doesn't mean Nintendo has lost any control over their ideas - I still can't build a GBA clone.
#21294 - ScottLininger - Wed May 26, 2004 11:33 pm
| notb4dinner wrote: |
| I'd be surprised if Nintendo holds a patent which you would be infringing by selling GBA games of your own making, if there is I'd argue it's validity - theres nothing new or novel required to make a GBA game. |
To be honest, I only heard about the "game" patent by a non-licensed hardware manufacturer, who told me that nintendo holds the patent for games but not necessarily for other uses.
So, you got me curious. I did a quick search at the US patent office, and it's really interesting. Nintendo holds 400+ patents in the US, covering things as specific as manufacturing GB-compatible cartridges to things as broad as a game where you can voluntarily replay a level (seriously.)
I only skimmed the list, and I didn't see anything as broad as "any game using the gameboy platform," but there are a lot of patents that talk about certain aspects of gameplay or certain uses for the hardware.
It's a fascinating read, if nothing else.
#21297 - sajiimori - Wed May 26, 2004 11:53 pm
| Quote: |
The law is based on ethics, however this does not mean that the entire countries views are taken into account. If they were then black people and women couldn't vote.
|
So you're saying that women got the vote despite the wishes of the public? Around here, we would call that a failure of the democratic system.
Thankfully, that's not what happened. Things don't change unless people want them to.
#21298 - keldon - Wed May 26, 2004 11:58 pm
To create a gameboy game that plays on a gameboy, the Nintendo logo must be present, which infringes copyright.
To legally use their logo you must acquire their permission, which they will not do without a license. There are different laws in different countries, so depending on what country your are from Nintendo may not be able to punish you.
The difference with developing for a Macintosh for free and developing a game for free and making money, is that Nintendo at some point of a console lifespan are losing money for their hardware and rely on software sales and licensing to do so.
Patenting laws are different to copyright, and is stronger in Nintendo's case as it is not simply 4 characters, it is an entire bitmap. A court case can swing either way depending on the jury, judge and lawyers. What works one place doesn't necessarily work in another - and court cases do not always necessarily bring a logical outcome.
And NO, we owe Nintendo Nothing but what we have earned from the industry -- which in most cases is joy, delight, but most certainly not money :)
#21299 - ampz - Thu May 27, 2004 12:36 am
| keldon wrote: |
| Patenting laws are different to copyright, and is stronger in Nintendo's case as it is not simply 4 characters, it is an entire bitmap |
An entire bitmap? No, only parts of the compressed data representing a bitmap. Note that the data in the header alone is meaningless.
#21304 - tepples - Thu May 27, 2004 4:38 am
| keldon wrote: |
| To create a gameboy game that plays on a gameboy, the Nintendo logo must be present |
Copying, granted. However, not all copying of a copyrighted work is infringement. Based on how I read the appellate decision in Sega v. Accolade, specifically the fair use analysis of III.D, copying the 156-byte GBA magic cookie is not infringement.
| Quote: |
| There are different laws in different countries |
I live in the United States and argue based on U.S. case law.
| Quote: |
| Nintendo at some point of a console lifespan are losing money for their hardware and rely on software sales and licensing to do so. |
By the time homebrew ramps up on a platform to where it can make sellable games, the console maker has long been out of the loss-leader phase.
| Quote: |
| Patenting laws are different to copyright, and is stronger in Nintendo's case as it is not simply 4 characters, it is an entire bitmap. |
True, "amount and substantiality" counts in a judge's determination of fair use. Several early Sega Genesis games were 512 KiB, and the code that Accolade copied into genesis_crt0.s was about 24 bytes (0.0046 percent of the ROM). The smallest Game Boy Advance games are 4096 KiB in size, and the magic cookie data is 156 bytes (0.0037 percent of the ROM).
| Quote: |
| A court case can swing either way depending on the jury, judge and lawyers. What works one place doesn't necessarily work in another |
In the United States, we have something called "precedent." According to the rules of common law, the outcome of one case must take the outcomes of prior cases into account to some extent. If a judge thinks that a prior decision doesn't apply, the judge must clarify exactly why in the opinion of the court.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21306 - notb4dinner - Thu May 27, 2004 5:47 am
| keldon wrote: |
The difference with developing for a Macintosh for free and developing a game for free and making money, is that Nintendo at some point of a console lifespan are losing money for their hardware and rely on software sales and licensing to do so. |
That may be true, but doing so is Nintendo's decision, their business model is really none of my concern.
#21307 - keldon - Thu May 27, 2004 9:52 am
| notb4dinner wrote: |
| keldon wrote: |
The difference with developing for a Macintosh for free and developing a game for free and making money, is that Nintendo at some point of a console lifespan are losing money for their hardware and rely on software sales and licensing to do so. |
That may be true, but doing so is Nintendo's decision, their business model is really none of my concern. |
I take that as a stupid comment. Pointless, not that I want to spark argument. Reason being, is that it is the business model for releasing consoles as the are expensive machines in comparison to their PC counterparts. More graphics cards are sold for PC's, so their cost can go down a lot quicker and they can afford to sell their graphics cards based on the developers costs. This puts the cost of most consoles up to ?500-?600, and in the case of a handheld about ?150-?200 in order to pay for initial orders.
| Quote: |
| In the United States, we have something called "precedent." According to the rules of common law, the outcome of one case must take the outcomes of prior cases into account to some extent. If a judge thinks that a prior decision doesn't apply, the judge must clarify exactly why in the opinion of the court. |
As with our law system, however in most cases based around computing, the law system is simply not ready for it and would often produce poor initial judgements. With computing, more often than not each case is individual and past cases are ignored as there aren't enough and the law hasn't adapted yet. In the case of using previous decisions, computer cases would most likely be using previous cases to disginguish themselves from that decision - and the fact is that even in America different decisions have arose over the same situations. An example is amazon being able to patent one click buying - the simplest algorithm on the planet that shouldn't even get past the first stage of patenting.
| Quote: |
| By the time homebrew ramps up on a platform to where it can make sellable games, the console maker has long been out of the loss-leader phase. |
The truth of the matter is that consoles don't need to be more expensive. It is simply a strategy to generate more money as millions will still buy it in that phase - and could happily sell at a steady price and never change it throughout its lifespan. Also it makes consumers feel they are getting a better deal on 'old' hardware. However it is the entire total that makes back profit, not just the early stages so they are dependant on every penny they get.
| Quote: |
| True, "amount and substantiality" counts in a judge's determination of fair use. Several early Sega Genesis games were 512 KiB, and the code that Accolade copied into genesis_crt0.s was about 24 bytes (0.0046 percent of the ROM). The smallest Game Boy Advance games are 4096 KiB in size, and the magic cookie data is 156 bytes (0.0037 percent of the ROM). |
The proportion may not make much difference, as it can be argued that over a certain measure of detail that simply containing the graphic is an infringement. Anything can be argued in a courtcase until laws are adapted to suit a world where copyright is no longer copying a book and republishing it illegally. As an example, cracking could only be tackled by using laws such as theft, or trespassing ( lol ). We're not far from that phase.
#21309 - wintermute - Thu May 27, 2004 10:07 am
| aaronphughes wrote: |
In a free market system, Nintendo has the right to design a system and reap benefits
from it. They have also "decided" to charge a fee, for any company/individual that
would like to develop for that system.
|
This is actually a common misconception. Nintendo do not actually directly charge developers a fee to become authorised. They are, however, the only legitimate source for the cartridges on which GBA games are sold.
| Quote: |
So, I am curious if anyone else out there feels that evading (avoiding) the developers fee is a form of piracy,
or are we totally justified?
|
There is no developers fee to avoid unless games are being distributed for profit in some form other than the official cartridges.
#21324 - sgeos - Thu May 27, 2004 9:15 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| An example is amazon being able to patent one click buying - the simplest algorithm on the planet that shouldn't even get past the first stage of patenting. |
If a mechanism is obvious to experts in the field, is that not grounds for a patent to be revoked?
| keldon wrote: |
| The truth of the matter is that consoles don't need to be more expensive. It is simply a strategy to generate more money as millions will still buy it in that phase - and could happily sell at a steady price and never change it throughout its lifespan. Also it makes consumers feel they are getting a better deal on 'old' hardware. However it is the entire total that makes back profit, not just the early stages so they are dependant on every penny they get. |
Are not we are talk about paying off factories here? After a factory is paid off, if we sell the product for less than the parts and labor, we are making a profit. A business generally attempts to make a profit.
| keldon wrote: |
| Anything can be argued in a courtcase until laws are adapted to suit a world where copyright is no longer copying a book and republishing it illegally. As an example, cracking could only be tackled by using laws such as theft, or trespassing ( lol ). We're not far from that phase. |
My personal opinion is that copyright is evil.
-Brendan
#21331 - keldon - Thu May 27, 2004 11:03 pm
| sgeos wrote: |
| My personal opinion is that copyright is evil.-Brendan |
So if I publish a book, the entire world should be able to resell it. If I draw a picture, it should be allowed to be used to promote something ethically wrong I am against.
Without copyright, the world, like russia before the 90's, would move slowly with people afraid to spend time creating something that will only favour a large business with the ability to outsell my own creation.
But this is a little off topic, and I feel a little more thought should go into opinions as they spark a corrective reponse when they are that wrong.
#21345 - aaronphughes - Fri May 28, 2004 2:45 am
Thanks for the feedback so far. Basically it seems the common opinion is, we owe Nintendo nothing if you program the GBA without permission so to speak, unless you intend to profit from it. I accept this as fair and ethical.
A couple of questions though...
| Quote: |
| Wintermute, you wrote "This is actually a common misconception. Nintendo do not actually directly charge developers a fee to become authorised. They are, however, the only legitimate source for the cartridges on which GBA games are sold." |
Is this true? If it is, why aren?t all of us using the ?official? compilers and development tools?
| Quote: |
| keldon ? You wrote ?To create a gameboy game that plays on a gameboy, the Nintendo logo must be present, which infringes copyright? |
However Tepples posted the ?Sega vs. Accolade? decision. If I read that correctly, it seems Accolade wanted to avoid the developers fee for the Genesis system. They reversed engineered the system, released "working" carts, they were of course sued, BUT the ruling was in their favor, even though they admitted to using the small boot up code to make the Sega logo appear.
Therefore, if this sets a precedent, it would NOT be illegal to create a "working" game even with the Nintendo logo present (at least in the US)
Now I did intend for the current laws to be exempt, and only each persons own personal ethics and judgment to be used. However, if this precedent is the case (at least in the US), then it would appear that anybody can release a full functioning GBA game (perhaps on a flash cart), or maybe for download for use only in the VBA, and legally would not owe Nintendo anything. Ethically however it would be a different case.
So, some clarification on the above would be great.
AH
#21354 - sgeos - Fri May 28, 2004 3:42 am
| keldon wrote: |
| So if I publish a book, the entire world should be able to resell it. |
What prevents this from happening now?
| Quote: |
| Without copyright, the world, like russia before the 90's, would move slowly with people afraid to spend time creating something that will only favour a large business with the ability to outsell my own creation. |
I disagree. Imagine what would happen to Disney if copyright suddenly disappeared. Think of all the roadside shops that would open up. I think it would do wonders for people like uhhh... homebrew developers? Eliminating copyright means that the people who can do a better or cheaper job manufacturing will be the ones who sell the products. All piracy would become legit. As legit businesses they would have to do things cheaper (probably the current plan) or better.
| Quote: |
| But this is a little off topic, and I feel a little more thought should go into opinions as they spark a corrective reponse when they are that wrong. |
Evidently you disagree with me. I think that big business gains more from copyright than smaller entities. Without copyright, timid people would not do anything, but imagine what the ambitious could get done!
My theory is that this would spark wars where entities all battle over doing a better job of implementing x-copywritten material. Big companies could not cry 'you stole my idea, give me a million dollars!' The response would be 'I came up this idea in the first place, I should be able to do a better job with it than anyone else!'
-Brendan
#21360 - wintermute - Fri May 28, 2004 4:11 am
| aaronphughes wrote: |
Thanks for the feedback so far. Basically it seems the common opinion is, we owe Nintendo nothing if you program the GBA without permission so to speak, unless you intend to profit from it. I accept this as fair and ethical.
|
That would be my thought too.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Wintermute, you wrote "This is actually a common misconception. Nintendo do not actually directly charge developers a fee to become authorised. They are, however, the only legitimate source for the cartridges on which GBA games are sold." |
Is this true? If it is, why aren?t all of us using the ?official? compilers and development tools?
|
Yes this is true and can be verified by asking Nintendo directly.
In order to posess and use the official tools you must be authorised. If you haven't applied and been accepted you're not authorised.
Getting authorised involves having a commercially viable project which Nintendo approve - this will include having an incorporated company and sufficient resources to see it through to completion. You can also get authorised if you are subcontracting for another authorised developer or publisher (this is by far the easiest path).
| Quote: |
... Sega vs Accolade ...
Therefore, if this sets a precedent, it would NOT be illegal to create a "working" game even with the Nintendo logo present (at least in the US)
|
this one I'm not entirely sure about. From my reading of this case it seems that part of the decision was based on the cost of becoming a Sega authorised developer which would have made the Accolade projects untenable
#21361 - wintermute - Fri May 28, 2004 4:15 am
| sgeos wrote: |
| keldon wrote: | | So if I publish a book, the entire world should be able to resell it. |
What prevents this from happening now?
|
copyright law. If someone sells your work without permission you are entitled to sue them.
| Quote: |
Evidently you disagree with me. I think that big business gains more from copyright than smaller entities. Without copyright, timid people would not do anything, but imagine what the ambitious could get done!
My theory is that this would spark wars where entities all battle over doing a better job of implementing x-copywritten material. Big companies could not cry 'you stole my idea, give me a million dollars!' The response would be 'I came up this idea in the first place, I should be able to do a better job with it than anyone else!'
|
I believe you have copyright and patent confused.
#21371 - sgeos - Fri May 28, 2004 6:29 am
| wintermute wrote: |
| sgeos wrote: | | keldon wrote: | | So if I publish a book, the entire world should be able to resell it. |
What prevents this from happening now? |
copyright law. If someone sells your work without permission you are entitled to sue them. |
If a person or entity is bound and determined to steal your work, they will find a way. One could take a book, do a global name replace, and change the grammar and look! We have a new book.
Cloning the vast majority of things is not worth that much effort. One could set up a shell corporation and sell your book. When you sue them the company has no assets and is magically bankrupt.
Furthurmore, ripping off the vast majority of things is not even worth *that* much effort. In reality if you can manage to sell something in the first place you are lucky, much less have it ripped. I do not think that there is not all that much to worry about. If your *stuff* gets ripped off, sue them. If that fails, clone your own work.
| wintermute wrote: |
| I believe you have copyright and patent confused. |
Perhaps. Perhaps this applies equally well to both copyright and patents. I agree that I am more strongly opposed to patents. Either way just having a idea or having written a story, or having an idea for a story or a character is nothing special. It's what one does with that idea or story or character that counts. That is true now. I think no copyright and certainly no patent protection would make that all the more true.
-Brendan
#21372 - ampz - Fri May 28, 2004 7:31 am
| Quote: |
| keldon ? You wrote ?To create a gameboy game that plays on a gameboy, the Nintendo logo must be present, which infringes copyright? |
However Tepples posted the ?Sega vs. Accolade? decision. If I read that correctly, it seems Accolade wanted to avoid the developers fee for the Genesis system. They reversed engineered the system, released "working" carts, they were of course sued, BUT the ruling was in their favor, even though they admitted to using the small boot up code to make the Sega logo appear.[/quote]
Actually, the Lexmark case is probably more relevant to the GBA logo issue.
Accolade did not put any copyrighted code or logo in their game. If I remember correctly, the only thing remotely copyrighted they put in their game was the word "SEGA" stored as four ascii chars in a 32bit constant. This constant is a mandatory argument to some bios boot code which must be called otherwise the console will not work properly. The main issue in the sega/accolade case was that the BIOS displays the text "Licensed by SEGA" on the screen before the game starts, which was of course not true for the accolade game. SEGA sued Accolade for illegally claiming that the game is licensed by SEGA, and Accolade countersued SEGA for illegally claiming that they had in some way helped/licensed the Accolades game ;)
#21373 - sgeos - Fri May 28, 2004 7:43 am
| ampz wrote: |
| Actually, the Lexmark case is probably more relevant to the GBA logo issue. |
google lexmark case
-Brendan
#21375 - keldon - Fri May 28, 2004 9:59 am
| sgeos wrote: |
| Quote: | | Without copyright, the world, like russia before the 90's, would move slowly with people afraid to spend time creating something that will only favour a large business with the ability to outsell my own creation. |
I disagree. Imagine what would happen to Disney if copyright suddenly disappeared. Think of all the roadside shops that would open up. I think it would do wonders for people like uhhh... homebrew developers? Eliminating copyright means that the people who can do a better or cheaper job manufacturing will be the ones who sell the products. All piracy would become legit. As legit businesses they would have to do things cheaper (probably the current plan) or better.
|
The background I give is Tetris. In Russia everything you create that is creative belongs to the state. Now that meant that when Tetris was created he was not allowed to make money from it and kept it a secret from the government. By leaking it to Europe he faced imprisonment, as he does not own his own work.
How this relates to copyright, is that if you don't control the right to your own work then you cannot make money from it and other people can. That again is a stupid comment so I have put it in bold.
Some of your ideas are however very thoughtful, however are remeniscent of what was wrong with Russia. People should create things for as cheap as possible, but they won't - but we must also protect those who do need money for their work. That is the purpose of copyright.
| sgeaos wrote: |
| Quote: | | But this is a little off topic, and I feel a little more thought should go into opinions as they spark a corrective reponse when they are that wrong. |
Evidently you disagree with me. I think that big business gains more from copyright than smaller entities. Without copyright, timid people would not do anything, but imagine what the ambitious could get done!
My theory is that this would spark wars where entities all battle over doing a better job of implementing x-copywritten material. Big companies could not cry 'you stole my idea, give me a million dollars!' The response would be 'I came up this idea in the first place, I should be able to do a better job with it than anyone else!'
-Brendan |
Copyright is not about gain, it is a right to not have people use your creative expression to generate money without your cut. Not sure what you mean here exactly though ????
| Quote: |
Perhaps. Perhaps this applies equally well to both copyright and patents. I agree that I am more strongly opposed to patents. Either way just having a idea or having written a story, or having an idea for a story or a character is nothing special. It's what one does with that idea or story or character that counts. That is true now. I think no copyright and certainly no patent protection would make that all the more true.
-Brendan |
Patents were invented in Italy, where glass making firms used secret methods for creating the purest perfect glass. However people could work for them to learn their secrets learned over centuries passed down by families and steal their methods. The Italian state created a patent to protect someone from using a unique method, or idea. Patents are a very good thing, but currently are implemented wrongly. They are very expensive, so only really benefit those with actual money.
But when you do have your patent, you would be happy that you benefit and not the first person to manufacture it.
#21387 - ampz - Fri May 28, 2004 3:55 pm
| sgeos wrote: |
| ampz wrote: | | Actually, the Lexmark case is probably more relevant to the GBA logo issue. |
google lexmark case
-Brendan |
It has been discussed earlier in this forum. Simply search for "lexmark" and you will find the thread.
#21464 - tepples - Sat May 29, 2004 4:29 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| The background I give is Tetris. |
Bad example IMHO. The "Tetris" issue turned out to be one of trademark, not copyright. You can't copyright a game. Elorg never obtained a United States patent on falling tetraminoes. Read More...
| Quote: |
| Patents are a very good thing, but currently are implemented wrongly. They are very expensive, so only really benefit those with actual money. |
The U.S. government does give discounts on patent application fees to small entities.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21469 - keldon - Sat May 29, 2004 6:21 pm
I never said you could copyright the idea of a game, but that is what happened because of the lack of ownership of your own creations. There is more to the story than who owned the copyright, etc. The law of Russia stated that he did not own his OWN game. He also could not accept money for it without the state taking most of it.
And a patent is still quite expensive even if you are a small entity, at least in the UK it is. And still any adjustment you make to the patent you must pay for, etc. You go down to the patent office and find out how much it is for a single person to patent an idea of his own.
For more background evidence, I give you the case of what happened in middle England, where an aristrocrat used to patent other peoples ideas and force them to have to pay him for their own work. The people who came up with the ideas could not afford to get a patent, but would sell their idea to him in exchange for money; so he would make bucketloads for thier inventions.
#21483 - ampz - Sat May 29, 2004 10:08 pm
It is not allowed to copy the exact principle of a game.
Example: "Mario Brothers" vs. "Giana Sisters".
You have to add something which makes the game different.
#21506 - tepples - Sun May 30, 2004 6:23 am
| ampz wrote: |
It is not allowed to copy the exact principle of a game.
Example: "Mario Brothers" vs. "Giana Sisters". |
That case went in Nintendo's favor because the whole graphic style was copied. A typical Tetris clone, on the other hand, has an original graphic style.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21510 - sgeos - Sun May 30, 2004 7:15 am
| keldon wrote: |
| I give you the case of what happened in middle England, where an aristrocrat used to patent other peoples ideas and force them to have to pay him for their own work. The people who came up with the ideas could not afford to get a patent, but would sell their idea to him in exchange for money; so he would make bucketloads for thier inventions. |
I'll change my case to "clearly patents are evil".
-Brendan
#21516 - keldon - Sun May 30, 2004 11:01 am
| sgeos wrote: |
| keldon wrote: | | I give you the case of what happened in middle England, where an aristrocrat used to patent other peoples ideas and force them to have to pay him for their own work. The people who came up with the ideas could not afford to get a patent, but would sell their idea to him in exchange for money; so he would make bucketloads for thier inventions. |
I'll change my case to "clearly patents are evil".
-Brendan |
Yes, they are in a way. They give people this false pretence that the state actually cares. Ever see that film with Bruce Willis where the government used a mechanics idea that he patented to produce machinery to mine some space meteor - it wouldn't surprise me if that is what they did with our inventions =).
#21518 - ampz - Sun May 30, 2004 12:01 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| ampz wrote: | It is not allowed to copy the exact principle of a game.
Example: "Mario Brothers" vs. "Giana Sisters". |
That case went in Nintendo's favor because the whole graphic style was copied. A typical Tetris clone, on the other hand, has an original graphic style. |
Have you played Giana Sisters? The graphics are not the same (Giana Sisters looks far better than Mario).
I'd say most tetris clones look more alike than Giana and Mario.
On the main issue, do N have the exclusive right to produce GBA carts or not.. How about we compare it to the inkjet printer market. It is not uncommon for printer manufacturers to sell inkjet printers at a loss, and then make a profit on the replacement ink cartridges. As we all know, third party ink cartridges are available at half the price (or less) than the original ones. Do printer manufacturers deserve a monopoly on replacement ink cartridges?
This is exactly what the lexmark case was all about. Lexmark put copyrighted data in a memory in the ink cartridges. In order for the printer to accept the cartridge, the copyrighted data had to be there.
#21521 - aaronphughes - Sun May 30, 2004 9:21 pm
| Quote: |
On the main issue, do N have the exclusive right to produce GBA carts or not.. How about we compare it to the inkjet printer market. It is not uncommon for printer manufacturers to sell inkjet printers at a loss, and then make a profit on the replacement ink cartridges. As we all know, third party ink cartridges are available at half the price (or less) than the original ones. Do printer manufacturers deserve a monopoly on replacement ink cartridges?
This is exactly what the lexmark case was all about. Lexmark put copyrighted data in a memory in the ink cartridges. In order for the printer to accept the cartridge, the copyrighted data had to be there. |
That is a very interesting and highly debated point you bring up. As well "deserve" is the important word here in my opinion.
There was a case I saw on the news recently about a car manufacturer putting integrated circuits (IC?s) on some parts of the car they sold. This way, only their "approved" replacement parts, such as tires and alternators would work.
A law suit ensued since another parts manufacturer cracked the code on the IC, and started selling replacement parts. This was taken as "infringement" on their patented IC or something like that.
Basically the case had two different points. Was this a high tech way of creating a monopoly OR an ingenious way to ensure your hard work is profitable?
I can understand both sides here.
Imagine if you never received a dime for coming up with a good idea. This why I often feel sorry for new rock groups who do great work, and 99% of the profit goes to record companies. On the other hand, let?s say someone finds the cure for cancer or aids, and demands a million dollars a pill! We are a pretty greedy species by nature, and there is this sense of entitlement or ?What?s in it for me? attitude. It seems we are constantly out to screw or take advantage of one another.
For the record the "other" parts manufacturer won the case, even though they admitted to reverse engineering the IC to make their parts compatible. Basically while nobody forced you to buy this particular car, the judge felt that this would set a bad precedent. If all automobile manufacturers began to do this, they would all in a sense, have their own private monopoly. Capitalism works best (for the consumer) when there are lots of choices and many competing companies have a price war lowering their prices to get your business. It works terrible for consumers when there are only a few competing companies and few choices. Then the current prices become questioned, and maybe there is price fixing going on.
Now back to Nintendo. I believe this is a tough area to apply current laws to. Do they have a monopoly has been asked before, and I think they do. Technically they don?t, if you consider portable gaming on cell phones (or the short lived game gear, turbo grafx and so on.). But honestly, these are only similar in the way that a car is similar to a skateboard. Most people want a GBA if they are playing serious portable gaming, just as most people drive their car to work, not their skateboard.
So, do printer manufacturers ?deserve? a monopoly on replacement ink cartridges? Likewise does Nintendo ?deserve? a monopoly on producing GBA carts?
My personal opinion is no.
AH
#21523 - ampz - Sun May 30, 2004 9:57 pm
If made legal, there is no limit on how far this could go.
How about cellphones only accept original batteries, washing machines only accept a certain kind of detergent, the fridge will only accept a certain kind of pizza.
Well, perhaps not the pizza part, but it is still a very dangerous road.
No manufacturer should be allowed to explicitly prevent interoperability.
This has nothing to do with the big company not getting paid for their work. They do get paid for the product they sell, and no one is copying their product.
#21525 - keldon - Sun May 30, 2004 10:53 pm
Consoles really rely on software sales (with the exception of the gamecube) to accumulate enough money to pay for manufacturing.
The XBox, for example has made a considerable loss with it being a $500-$600 machine - simply due to software sales not being what it wished for. The gamecube has made a profit - even though it has lower software, and possibly hardware sales worldwide than the XBox. Nintendo also rely on the handheld market where it is unmatched. Sales for phones in something like a 1 month period outshadow that of gba sales in a year - but the Nokia N-Gage did nothing to Nintendo's gba sales, so it is quite questionable as to whether they have a monopoly or not. Just as their is Macintosh and Linux, Microsoft still have a monopoly ( at the moment ).
We simply can't compare consoles to washing machines, printers and phones; although consoles aren't the only machines that rely on various other sales to generate profit. Contract phones, for example, rely on you paying up to $600 over a one year period (going by UK prices). But do also offer the option of a full priced phone.
Having said that, if the consoles were full priced the games may be cheaper, as they are with the PC - but that's only a possibility.
#21533 - ScottLininger - Mon May 31, 2004 3:19 am
Another thing we must recognize is that the console lives or dies by the *quality* of its games. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: one of the big reasons Nintendo has been a success is because they won't allow crap games on their platform (or at least not TotalCrapTM).
If anyone could easily produce a GB game, then many of us would have already released our TotalCrap games (I know mine are), and the overall GB fan base would suffer from it. ;)
I also just wanted to clarify some terms. If you already know this stuff, please skip over it. But I thought I'd share, since when I started out it all seemed very confusing...
--------------------------------
COPYRIGHT is the body of laws that protects specific works of art, music, or text. The moment your author something, it is protected by copyright law. If you like, you can put "(C) 2004 My Name. All Rights Reserved" on your work, just to make it clear to everyone. If you're really paranoid, you can send yourself a copy of the work via registered mail, then never open the envelope. If you ever have to go to court, you can show the judge the envelope establishing the date of your claim. This is all free. You don't have to be a giant corporation to afford it.
Now, you may also choose to register your copyright with the US Copyright office, which costs $15 or something, but it is NOT necessary to be protected under the law.
You CANNOT copyright an idea, game system, mechanic, or algorithm, only a specific work of art. So if someone wanted to steal the IDEA of tetris and make it look different, they legally can.
Copyright was never intended to protect a little token of code that you must have in your widgit to make the widgit machine work. I mean, can you copyright a word? NO. That's what trademarks are for...
--------------------------
TRADEMARKS are the body of law that protects specific words, phrases, character designs, or logos from being stolen or even closely copied by competitors. Trademarks cost more, because they MUST be registered with the government(s) of the states/countries where you intend to sell your product. To trademark something, you just put the little TM next to it, then send a copy of your trademark, along with a form detailing when you started using it, to the government. This initial registration process costs a couple hundred bucks, if I remember right. Again, not outside the budget of an individual.
Then, once you've used the mark for a couple of years, you can pay more to register it. This requires an in-depth search to make sure that the mark has not already been taken. Eventually, this will lead to your trademark becoming Registered, which lets you put the little (R) on your mark. The Nintendo logo is trademarked. Mickey Mouse is trademarked. Animated mice are NOT trademarkable. That's what patents are for...
-----------------------------------
PATENTS are the thing that cost a lot of money, comparitively speaking. Patents protect ideas, widgits, algorithms, methods of manufacturing, etc. Monopoly has a US patent, which means it is illegal to create a game with identical mechanics to Monopoly, even if you change all of the art and call it something else.
To get a patent, you have to go through a long and legally involved process, which is why most people hire patent attorneys to do the grunt work. I've never personally gone through the patent process, but I know that the whole thing can be done for under $10,000. Is that a prohibitive amount for a small business? Maybe. It totally depends on how much money the idea can make you, and how important it is to protect that idea from competition.
---------------------------------
Anyway, to get back to my original point, I feel that the reason Nintendo patents (and enforces) the method of making carts is more to ensure the quality of the product than to protect the platform from competition. And for that, I applaud them.
I still don't feel that it's ethically wrong to make GB games without their blessing, but I DO feel it's philosophically wrong to deny someone (even an evil, faceless corporation, if you believe in that kind of thing) to protect their hard work from others.
If you don't like their politics, don't buy their product. If you hate the way they refuse to share their secret sauce, then by all means go and make a sauce of your own. (And do it with the assurance that our legal system provides you with tools to make some money from your sauce. Mmmm. ;)
- Scott
#21538 - ampz - Mon May 31, 2004 1:40 pm
Are we even sure that Nintendo sell the GBA at a loss? $100 is actually a resonable price for a ARM7 based ASIC, some memory, discrete components, plastics, and a 3" color LCD.
#21541 - keldon - Mon May 31, 2004 3:21 pm
| ampz wrote: |
| Are we even sure that Nintendo sell the GBA at a loss? $100 is actually a resonable price for a ARM7 based ASIC, some memory, discrete components, plastics, and a 3" color LCD. |
Nintendo at the moment do not sell any hardware at a loss; but at launch they usually are. The components aren't going to be as cheap as mass produced equivalents though, as custom made components take longer to go down in price. Removing the licensing and cuts from cartridge sales; there is no question of a doubt that hardware costs would shoot up - not of greed but to meet the cost of production.
#21546 - ampz - Mon May 31, 2004 5:29 pm
| keldon wrote: |
| ampz wrote: | | Are we even sure that Nintendo sell the GBA at a loss? $100 is actually a resonable price for a ARM7 based ASIC, some memory, discrete components, plastics, and a 3" color LCD. |
Nintendo at the moment do not sell any hardware at a loss; but at launch they usually are. The components aren't going to be as cheap as mass produced equivalents though, as custom made components take longer to go down in price. Removing the licensing and cuts from cartridge sales; there is no question of a doubt that hardware costs would shoot up - not of greed but to meet the cost of production. |
"Custom components" I assume you are talking about the GBA ASIC. Well, when you design a ASIC, there is a huge one time cost. But after that, the production cost is really low. The same goes for the plastics. I don't see how you can say that they sell hardware at loss at launch, just because their development costs are high.
#21547 - keldon - Mon May 31, 2004 6:02 pm
Well there is never a loss, more of a virtual, or relative loss. The gameboy, I'm not too sure of exactly; but the current consoles definately don't make as much from consoels sales as it costs to develop and build - apart from the Gamecube, which is a very cheap console.
But having said that, the console market is like no other, and does rely on software in any case - especially since the console price is always lower than it ought to be, simply because there is software to back it up.
I don't think Nintendo do sell their consoles at a loss; unlike Microsoft and Sony they invest in making their parts dirt cheap. It is questionable whether they even need software sales, since they have generated $6Bn profit in one year, compared to the $100 million or so loss that microsoft has lost.
Their fee is for those in the big picture. Nintendo basically give them a right to print money by marketting a console (which apparently does have a marketting campaign) worthy of bringing them high software sales - in exchange these software distributers give Nintendo a sub. Nothing wrong with that really is it?? Would you rather develop and keep all the money for yourself with only a few hundred thousand potential customers?
But for us in the homebrew section, it makes no sense. But the business model was not built for us. We're all happy to pay tax to the government for using their currency, apart from tax evaders. This is really no different.
#21551 - ampz - Mon May 31, 2004 8:25 pm
Well, it sounds like we have established that Nintendo do not loose money on the GBA console, perhaps they even make a profit from it. Millions of GBAs sold at like $100 each, low cost parts. I can definitely see a possible profit.
Either way, I don't see how they "deserve" any money from hobby developers, or even 3rd party game and accessory companies. The GBA is a huge success, naturally 3rd party people and companies develop accessories for it, and hobbyists find more uses for it. The same happens to pretty much any successful product out there.
There are tons of GBA accessories made by noname companies. Some of them even include the compressed logo (like the "GBA memory stick"). You think any of thoose pay any kind of fees to Nintendo? You think they should?
#21560 - keldon - Mon May 31, 2004 11:36 pm
Homebrew developers wouldn't pay Nintendo anything, and we shouldn't. But Nintendo have secured profit for any 3rd party developer or accessories developer beyond their wildest dream.
Producing for the GBA is about the only way to make a short 2d game that actually generates money. Many of the games released are now matched by flash games that make nothing at all. So there's no question that without the GBA they wouldn't make money for their products and games.
I prefer the market how it is because I benefit from a low cost machine, and I only buy the best games - which is not a lot. But if they didn't charge for each game sold but sold the console at a full price go make profit, I think that would benefit the buyer who buys a lot of games - which a lot of us do. But it works fine for me :)
#21567 - sgeos - Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:15 am
| ampz wrote: |
| "Custom components" I assume you are talking about the GBA ASIC. Well, when you design a ASIC, there is a huge one time cost. But after that, the production cost is really low. The same goes for the plastics. |
If you were to print cardboard counters for board games, it would cost something like $400.04 for the first sheet, and $0.04 for every sheet after that. If 500 sheets were made, the total cost would be $420. The average cost would be $0.84 a sheet. If you can only sell 100 sheets, you'd need to sell them for $4.20 a piece to break even financially.
-Brendan
#21570 - ampz - Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:46 am
| sgeos wrote: |
| ampz wrote: | | "Custom components" I assume you are talking about the GBA ASIC. Well, when you design a ASIC, there is a huge one time cost. But after that, the production cost is really low. The same goes for the plastics. |
If you were to print cardboard counters for board games, it would cost something like $400.04 for the first sheet, and $0.04 for every sheet after that. If 500 sheets were made, the total cost would be $420. The average cost would be $0.84 a sheet. If you can only sell 100 sheets, you'd need to sell them for $4.20 a piece to break even financially.
-Brendan |
Is that not what I said?
The one-time-cost for ASIC masks is about 100k USD or so. Sure, it is a lot of money, but when you realize that N sell millions of GBAs, the ASIC mask cost per GBA becomes insignificant. And the nice thing about ASICs is that the cost per produced unit is really low compared to alternatives such as FPGA and/or ASSP. The only catch is that your production volume must be large enough, otherwise the cost of the masks become significant (Volume is obviously no problem for Nintendo).
The cost for the ASIC is probably just a few dollars total. The most expensive parts in the GBA is most probably the LCD and the assembly costs (alot of manual work is required to assemble a GBA).
For the GBA SP, the battery is probably even more expensive than the LCD, explaining the cost difference. The SP also has more plastic parts, resulting in more manual assembly work.
#21574 - sgeos - Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:09 am
| ampz wrote: |
| sgeos wrote: | | ampz wrote: | | when you design a ASIC, there is a huge one time cost. But after that, the production cost is really low. |
If you were to print cardboard counters for board games, it would cost something like $400.04 for the first sheet, and $0.04 for every sheet after that. |
Is that not what I said? |
It is. I wanted to illustrate with numbers.
-Brendan