Re: [stella] 2600 adaptor for the coleco...

Subject: Re: [stella] 2600 adaptor for the coleco...
From: jvmatthe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:16:23 -0500 (EST)
> This fuss over UltraHLE (a new freeware Nintendo 64 emulator for PCs) is
> kind of interesting.  The IDSA (the computer gaming industry's attack dog) 
> has said: 
> 
>     "While some emulators are made by hobbyist programmers, that does not
>     mean that they are legal. If the sole purpose of an emulator is to
>     allow the playing of a console game on a PC, and the owner of the
>     copyrights in that console game has not authorized the performance,
>     display, or derivative work created when a console game is played on a
>     PC, then the creation and use of that emulator constitutes a
>     contributory infringement of the copyrights in the console game."
> 
>     (see http://www.idsa.com/faq.html)

So let me get this straight...a console game played on computer may not be
legal unless a specific license (authorization to use the wording above) to
play it on a computer.  (I'm using "computer" here because it includes the
Mac and so-called PC.) 

The thing that comes to mind for me here is the whole Tetris deal from a few 
years back (and which was recently brought up with the Tetris Company).  
Basically, in that case, IIRC, the Nintendo case effectively split the 
licensing of that game into at least two regions: console and computer.  
Extrapolating from that, the above quote seems to say that the license on 
console games does not extend to having those games played on computers 
using emulators *and* the Nintendo/Tetris case in some way provides a 
precedent for the splitting of the license between computer and console 
and saying that a license for each must be obtained.

Thinking of emus in these terms is not something I'd considered.  If, in the
case of Sony vs. Connectix, Sony tries to argue along these lines, it will
be interesting.  Though it is not stated directly as a "license" there is a
part of some Playstation game manuals that reads "This compact disc is in-
tended for use only with the PlayStation(tm) game console."  That could be
interpreted as a license to use in only on the "console" platform to the
exclusion of all other platforms, in this case a "computer".  Furthermore,
on all the third party software that I have available here (e.g. Tomb
Raider III, Castlevania: SOTN, all the emu/simulators from Digital Eclipse)
there is another sentence which says "Licensed by Sony Computer Entertainment
of America for use with the PlayStation game console."  Certainly this seems
to say that Sony obtained the rights to this software only for a console
version.  (Although the name "Sony Computer Entertainment" seems a little
funny. :^)  But then on all the first party (e.g. Rally Cross) and second
party (e.g. Twisted Metal 2, Jet Moto) software there is no similar license 
statement (which seems natural since they didn't have to license those from
anyone else.)

[Ruffin: Since you have TR2 for Mac could you look to see if it says something
like "Licensed by Westlake for use with the Apple Macintosh"?  If it does
and TR2 for PSX has a similar license but for the PSX, then perhaps Sony
could make the case, using the IDSA's idea from above, that the emu en-
courages the violation of these licenses.]

There is another question I have that perhaps someone like Glenn or Russ
knows the answer to: When Activision released their emu for the PC and Mac
did they have to obtain exclusive rights to the games they had there?  I
know that Activision owns the rights to their games that were in those col-
lections as well as the Imagic games, but they also included Combat in one
of them and it would be interesting to know if a specific "computer" platform
license was obtained from Atari Corp. for that game.

If this seems a little jumbled, sorry, but I'm a tad tired.

matt

--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/

Current Thread