Talk:ROM image

message: I think this page should be moved under a title that better fits our naming conventions. The title "Roms" has several problems: it's plural, should be capitalized (since it's an acronym), and is fairly vague to boot. I'd suggest moving it to ROM image (currently a redirect to Read-only memory, so an administrator would need to do it) or to ROM (emulation) in order to distinguish it in that context. I think "ROM image" is preferable, since it's more general. -- Wapcaplet 00:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the page had a problematic title, so I took my time to do the move you suggested. It looks better to me now. I didn't bother listing this action somewhere for discussion, since the ROM image page had a minor history, so it's not like anything would be harmed.--Kaonashi 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad title 

message: I added some basic tenants of Copyright law, but I noticed there is an expansive section that was added which appears to have some advice of dubious validity in regards to the legality of video game roms.  I'm not sure what should be done so I just tossed this concern on the discussion page.
:Well the problem is there is some (very good) reasoning that an "unavailable" game can't be losing the company money so is "OK", whereas the legal side of things is 70 years, except in the rare case of true abandonment of copyright, such as, um, G-Nome, the publisher and developer of which were both dissolved after absorption by an obscure entity (Microprose?). So yes your concerns are valid but I'm not sure how one would write the article to give both sides of the matter. GarrettTalk 04:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm concerned about some of the legal "advise" on this page 

message: Just curious, why was this edit deleted? 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased opinion. — mæstro t/c, 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, I was new back then. I didn't know about WP:NPOV. -82.7.125.142 18:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: When taking a look at pages offering ROMs for download, one can recognize naming conventions / nomenclatures for ROMs. Often you see marks like (J), (UE) or (US) that show where this game was released/on what national hardware it runs. But there are others like [!] which would be good to be explained.
:Add a small paragraph by all means (preferably in a new section), but don't make a huge list like there was previously (which I removed). Wikipedia is not the place for long lists of definitions. Give a few examples in the articles of some common codes (like [!], the language identifiers, and maybe [T]), but don't mention the more obscure ones like [f] or [o], which few people are likely to come across, and which are only really important to programmers and ROM dumpers. --82.7.125.142 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROM naming standards 

message: It's often stated that it's legal for someone to own a copy of a video game (or other data) for backup purposes. Hypothetically, this would mean that having ROM images of games you already own is legal, but this is often disputed (usually by arguments that have little or no substance, if you don't mind my saying). The point is, I think the section on this in the article should be expanded (it currently reads: "If you own a physical copy of a game, making a single backup or archival copy of it is legal in the US."), and I'm looking for suggestions on how to do so. This is one of the major debates on the legality of emulation, and, frankly, I don't think that single sentence does enough to show that.
Any suggestions welcome. --82.7.125.142 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really vague, but the US Copyright Office put out a reasonable explanation here (it's a Federal .gov, so it can be freely adapted).  However, it's not clear when it says: "This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works." --does that mean only computer-based programs?  I believe it does (and this is my J.D. talking), in that you can't take a ROM of a cartridge and create a copy for the computer (that would presumable work on a computer), then you no longer have a "back-up only", you have an alternate version of the game.  Still, the people don't understand the arguments --it reminds me of the BS claim that having a ROM for a short period of time would be legal.  For a quick refutation of that later claim from another attorney, see #25 here Bobak 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says in nintnedums manuals that devices are not necessary to backup...  What if the cartrigde breaks????? RealG187 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of ROMs as archival copies 

message: There seems to be conflict with an Anon user who believes this statement is NPOV (this is the only paragraph he thinks is appropriate under "abandonware"):
:Abandonware is a term which many emulation enthusiasts use to refer to software which is no longer made available by the copyright holder. As such, they posit that the copyright holder has abandoned their copyright and that such software should be freely tradeable. Abandonware has no basis in copyright law. However, trading in abandonware is frequently justified by those who engage in it as not having a detrimental effect on copyright holders since it involves only products which are no longer being distributed.
This is a one sided POV from that of the "emulation/rom enthusiast", which in the legal world is called software piracy (a term that is not in my version of this section).  I don't intend to create a condemnation of software piracy in this small section, but instead I wanted to demonstrated the US laws that do govern copyright, how they work, and how it leaves no room for abandonware in its current theoritical state.  My version of this section basically states: "This is what the emulation community calls abandonware; this is what the law says about that subject."  If that's POV, then it's nudged towards preventing Wikipedia from advising illegal activity (and I know Wikipedia is not meant to give legal advise, but it should certainly notify people if something in the encyclopedia is patently illegal).  Bobak 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently working with another Wikipedia user who wants to shorten this section down to something not so law laden. We should have something soon. Bobak 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abandonware" POV issues. 

message: I added the following excerpt to the article;
:It should be noted that in game manuals, especially the games released after 1995, comment on the legality of ROM images.  The following excerpt was taken directly from the Warranty and Service information from the EarthBound manual.
::Warning:  Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international copyright laws.  "Back-up" or "archival" copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software.  Violators will be prosecuted.
:While such statements aren't found in every game manual, and there are companies that allow archival and back-up copies of their games, statement barring copies are common enough that one should carefully read the ownwer's license before making copies of games for any purposes.
What do you think?  An adequate addition to the article?  I would like feedback on how I might improve future submissions, or even this submission.--Vercalos 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...by US copyright law, backup copies ARE allowed. I really don't think corporations can create their own laws on the matter. 81.153.23.185 13:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "backup" copy exception is probably the least understood aspect of US copyright law (and I mean by everyone involved).  The "archival" exception has been interpreted to mostly refer to libraries.  There seems to be safe room for a person to make a copy of their own game in the same medium (i.e. CD to CD, cartridge to cartridge), but putting them in other formats (like a computer HD) can be a potential problem.  As for whether companies make their own contracts stricter?  Yes, the law just forms a baseline.  For example, if two businesses wanted to make a contract with stricter rules (for whatever reason), the law would support it if the both agreed and the stricter terms aren't so extreme that they're deemed unenforceable for whatever reason.  By buying the game you're agreeing to the user agreement (like clickware, etc).  Of course, we have yet to hear of a video game buyer trying to return an openned game to the store because they didn't agree with the fine print in the back of the manual.  Nintendo actually has one of the more readible ROM-related FAQs on the web, and it looks like they've expanded it.  While this is certainly written from the company/owner perspective, it's more than likely to be the one to win if an individual were to be sued by the Big N: Nintendo's Legal FAQ.  Now that I think about it, this would be a good external link on more than a few pages.  Bobak 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, by buying the game, you're agreeing to follow and uphold the license.  If you break the rules set forth by the contract, and the rules within it are reasonable, you can be prosecuted for breach of contract, to be technical.--Vercalos 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this can easily be turned overturned for the main reason that these sort of "agreements" are stated inside the packaging and that the consumer could not read them before opening that package. Since you cannot return an opened software, you're kind of screwed if you disagree with the "agreements". Software companies could even be opened to get sued themselves for running a scam in such situations, hence why you don't hear a lot about cases where software companies sued a person for making personal copies. On that note, I'm happy to live in Canada, a country where people who sale bootleg movies in front of movie theaters only get a slap on the wrist. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As bogus as it is for software companies to do this (make you agree to the conditions before you know what they are), it's perfectly legal. It's not the software company's fault that their opened software cannot be returned. However, that's irrelevant to the fact that they can do it nonetheless. I believe it was either Adobe or Microsoft that has a "By opening this package, you agree to the terms and conditions within." on the outside of one or more of their software packages. It won't be "overturned," as the user doesn't have to open the package if they don't want to risk the agreements, so long as the agreements are compatible with the law of the country in which the product is produced and/or sold. Preventing "backups," "archives," and copying is compatible with U.S. law. - GAMEchief (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game copies. 

message: I just stumbled across this article here, and there's some inaccurate information regarding ROM dumps and the "one-backup" law. According to US law, ROM images are *not* covered by the archival exception in regards to copyright. This was decided in the court case of Atari v JS&A. In that court case, it was determined that the archival/backup rule existed because of the volatile nature of magnetic media; it was very easy to lose the information stored on a disk or a tape. But ROM images, because of their durability, were likened to a permanent (relatively) media like a book. I'm editing the article to reflect this and remove any confusion regarding the matter. Daniel Davis 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Don't you wish there were a way to get Wikipedia a subscription to Lexis or WestLaw?  Man I miss those... --- Bobak 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm..  The quote I added from the EarthBound EULA was removed.  Should I add it back?  I rather think it was a good addition to the article.--Vercalos 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you referring to [this] edit? Hmm... I don't know; while it is valid to incorporate the notification of one's legal rights into a manual, I would differ as to the content of the final paragraph you inserted. Regardless or not of whether the EULA at the back of a game manual contains a reference to the unauthorized copy of a game, without specific direct permission from the copyright holder any duplication of a ROM is against the law. Reading the owner's manual, even carefully, doesn't dismiss the legal implications. Daniel Davis 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games ROMs and the Legality of Archival Copies 

message: This article does not mention BIOS, when you update the BIOS in the computer or the firmware, dont you use a ROM image or something for that too? -- Frap 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a BIOS file isn't a ROM image. They, however, are copyrighted also. They are illegal to share amongst each other (and I think even to possess outside of the hardware/software combination on which they are produced or meant to be a part of). - GAMEchief (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIOS 

message: :More recent examples include Id Software's release of the source code to Doom, Quake, Quake II and Quake III Arena under the GNU General Public Licence.
I removed this as irrelevant because 1) these games are not ROMs (there were ports to systems like the SNES, etc., but the source to those ports remains closed), and 2) this only covers the source code, not the games (which are comprised of more than just source code). It remains illegal to this day to download a full copy of Wolfenstein 3D or DOOM. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  id Software examples 

message: Wouldn't Atari v. JS&A (1983), which involved a ROM backup utility, have been effectively overturned by Universal v. Sony (1984). Similar principle after all. ShawnIsHere (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That article says copying was declared fair-use in the Univeral v. Sony case because of time-shifting.  Video-game cartridges can be used at any time. OhSqueezy (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atari v. JS&A Overturned by [[Universal v. Sony]]? 

message: This is missing the rather important qualification: "without the permission of the copyright holder". This applies, for example, in the case of many ZX Spectrum games. 86.136.255.51 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's still not legal, even if you delete them within 24 hours. That's a myth. Check the law books. - GAMEchief (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "it is illegal to download copyrighted ROMs from the internet" 

message: The Abandonware section implies that a ROM image is allowed if the company is no longer selling or promoting a game. That is not the definition of abandonware, or at least _legal_ abandonware. Legal abandonware results from the copyright holder no longer existing (a company that goes out of business, where the copyrights go to no person in particular) or the copyright holder cancelling the copyrights [or the software in question otherwise becoming part of public domain]. Just because a game isn't being sold or  promoted does _not_ mean it is legally distributable, so that should not be implied by the article. - GAMEchief (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandonware Implication 

message: Too many "they" usage, which only refers to living beings. "It", "these", etc., are the proper terms and/or words to use in place of "they". Also caught a "so" in the article. The article needs a good rewrite to be able to read properly. Overall, it almost seems like a forum discussion on ROMs. Apple8800 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: Specifically, the bold part:
In the United States (and other countries), it is illegal to download ROMs of games that one doesn't own physically. Ironically, however, one doesn't get arrested nor fined for breaking this law.
I just wanna make sure since there's no citation for this part.
75.129.123.163 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this part true? 

message: I removed the following content as original research.
Anyone is welcome to readd any content that can be directly verified by a reliable secondary source.  Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 02:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ROM image. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090928102455/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000663278 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000663278
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified