Is it Legual

[hhoopllaa]

nintendo is to busy swimming in money to notice this little site so why should we worry

[Truth Unknown]

Originally Posted by VintageJawbone

In the end, it comes down the age old question.

Is it officially abandonware?

Abandonware means nothing to copyright law.

Originally Posted by hhoopllaa

nintendo is to busy swimming in money to notice this little site so why should we worry

They don't care about this site since it covers an emulator, not their copyrighted properties. The closest thing they could call foul about would be patent infringement in the broadest sense, but even that would be frivolous.


People who bought a Nintendo 64 game can do almost whatever they want with that copy, but not a copy they got from elsewhere. One would have to dump a copy of their own.

[VintageJawbone]

Yeah, you have a point. If companies really wanted to, they could hold onto everything forever, and even take it down with them.

[hhoopllaa]

nintendo will not see this as legal but they wont see any roms too.they dont have time to search the web and sue random websites like doperroms.com or other websites

[HatCat]

Originally Posted by Truth Unknown

They don't care about this site since it covers an emulator, not their copyrighted properties. The closest thing they could call foul about would be patent infringement in the broadest sense, but even that would be frivolous.

Alright I have a second question.
To make an emulator we will need documentation on the target system and can use reverse engineering. An emulator, when measuring accuracy, I am perceiving in some case is similar to target system.

From these concepts I am wondering if an emulator itself does violate hardware copyrights?
I mean the games software is just plugged in. Everyone seems to worry over "We provide the console...not the games."

Companies hadn't begun to get upset over N64 emulators or piracy of their games until UltraHLE could trace them to one another. Only then did they start waging threats; before then they at least comparatively did not care.

So I'm not like questioning, is the reason Nintendo/Sony argue against other emulators the reason, just whether an emulator is really 100% legal. It still copies off the designs of another; otherwise it couldn't exist.

[hhoopllaa]

you rswdlow you have the emmulator so why dont you delete it and go suck up to nintendo and say 'hay why dont you go sue these people"(wich to you will make sense) but then nintendo will say were to cheap and dont want to wast the money we swim in

[HatCat]

Having the emulator doesn't copy anything; making it does.
In any case, if I'm included in some crime, just wanting to know.

[Emmett]

I took contract law freshman year in college. Now I don't remember the details, but I still have the book if you want me to look it up for sure.

I do remember something about the Digital Millennium copyright act. I think that copy protection CAN be reverse engineered or "cracked" if it is used to preserve, not to steal. For example, say that Bob made a computer game that I bought. It has copy protection on it, and there is no way for me to back my game up. I can go to a completely legal site, such as gamecopyworld.com, and legally back my copy up. There is nothing illegal about this.

But if you want to know for sure, I can go get the textbook and quote from it if it will make you feel better.

[Emmett]

NVM.

I just realized: The n64 system itself is not copyrighted: It's patented. Therefore, the work done by the project 64 team probably falls under patent law, NOT copyright law. Not for sure; just an educated hunch.

Now the names of Nintendo, N64, etc are a different story. We're looking at Trademarks there.

However, the functioning of the N64 would probably be patent based.

Also, most of the law I know is American based. If project 64 is hosted in Australia, then I'm clueless about what is legal or illegal.

[Emmett]

Originally Posted by rswedlow

From these concepts I am wondering if an emulator itself does violate hardware copyrights?

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a hardware copyright. There are Patents, and also Trade Secrets. Does the patent on the n64 carry over to a replica of it on the computer? Probably, but if Nintendo presses it, Project 64 will probably not be liable for damages. They would just get a cease and desist letter. Which means if you're a user of project 64, then Nintendo won't even care if you exist. If they won't go after project 64 for money, then they definitely won't go after individual users for money.

So in answer to your question; if you feel morally wrong for using Project 64, don't. The only way you should feel morally wrong is if Nintendo asked you to stop and you didn't.
If you feel legally wrong, then don't. You're not legally liable, and you will in no way be involved in a lawsuit with Nintendo as an end user of project64.

As to the abandonware issue:
Abandonware simply means that it IS still illegal, but for some reason the company that owns the copyrights won't push the issue. (example: the company doesn't want to pay the $$$ for a lawsuit.) There are rare forms of abandonware where it is NOT illegal, as is the following exception granted under the 2006 update to the DCMA:

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption, first approved in 2003.)"

In other words, b/c Nintendo Roms are being sold on the Wii, there is no way they fall under this exemption.

Just an update for you all. I don't much care for wild accusations without any proof. It just makes people look silly. I'm no lawyer, and I'm probably wrong about some if this. But at least I provided sources for where I'm coming from. Also, I went ahead and read through the intellectual property section of my book. It's "West's Legal Environment of Business, Custom Edtition for WCOB 1012", written by Cross/Miller. A good briefing of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act, and exceptions can be found here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Hope this helps everybody.