Don't order those goods from Lik-Sang just yet.

I agree 100%. Anyone can usualy find something good, but definaty if your caucasion, don't ask questions. Also pay by cash, not credit card or something that generates paper trails.

A good example is chinese restraunts. If you pay by cash, there is no tax, and tip and everything is built in. Pay by credit card or if your person who wants a bill or receipt for something, you get the shaft. Of course knowing chinese helps when reading store policys ect.
 
Believe it or not I agree with the DMCA. The vast majority of people who buy mod chips and flashers and such are pirates, not home brew developers like some of you people seem to insist. Let's look at SX for example. Of the 1500+ members here how many have made releases? Only one person comes to mind, Denis. How else can you fight piracy?
 
"Believe it or not I agree with the DMCA."

I don't believe it, mostly because the DMCA isn't a single law.

"The vast majority of people who buy mod chips and flashers and such are pirates, not home brew developers like some of you people seem to insist."

The fact remains that forbidding the tools is going to hurt everyone involved, whether or not their actual use is legitimate. Furthermore, there is absolutely no requirement in Title 17, Chapter 12 for the device to be usable for "piracy". It merely has to disable or work around access controls - in theory, this means that AR4M+/Satellite/ST-Key/territory switch are illegal, and DVD region-free mods are illegal. Do you agree with that?

"Let's look at SX for example. Of the 1500+ members here how many have made releases? Only one person comes to mind, Denis."

Aside from the fact that other members have released stuff (most notably Daniel, Takashi, and Charles Doty; also myself), your argument seems to be based on the idea that anyone not developing must be here for warez, which I find to be a bit of a leap.

"How else can you fight piracy?"

By lowering prices, implementing strong protection schemes, and shutting down major professional bootlegging operations?
 
We can argue this debate forever.

"The fact remains that forbidding the tools is going to hurt everyone involved, whether or not their actual use is legitimate."

I think the DMCA was initiated to protect the infringement of copyrighted material correct? So if there were no mod chips in this country how many people would be ablewilling to pirate games? I know on the saturn you can swap, but what about other systems? Psx? Xbox? etc. Eliminating the flow of mod chips and flash carts should deter piracy. Will piracy ever be fully stopped? Probably not.

"....your argument seems to be based on the idea that anyone not developing must be here for warez, which I find to be a bit of a leap."

Actually that is the basis of my arguement ;) I honestly feel that the vast majority of people are here for ISOs. I admit that a few people are here for other reasons, such as the developers and such though.
 
Quote: from FLEABttn on 7:53 pm on Feb. 20, 2002

Not it's not. Say I'm a developer for homebrewn gameboy stuff. I wouldn't be able to use my program/game on a real gameboy without a flash cart. That's the legal justification for a flash cart.


Well it IS Nintendo's device, it IS their right to let whomever they want develop for it. People can't just go around making games for it and selling them without Nintendo's permission. That's kinda sorta part of how they make their profits. I'd get somewhat pissed off if I just launched a device that I plunked millions of dollars into just to see it become the victim of piracy right out the door. Or if I saw other people making a profit off it without my consent.

Yes, the DMCA needs reform. As it is it gives the gov't and their corporate buddies way too much control over just about everything. But there is a need for order and for people's rights to be protected.

I guess what I'm trying to say (and not very well I might add) is this. Nintendo, MS, Sony, they can do whatever the #### they want. We have no right to any of their stuff. We know the rules when we play the game (literally in this case). Don't like 'em? So far, tough. They made us these nice systems and they made the rules for them. If you don't agree with the way they control their technology, make your own system and support it. If you really cared THAT much about it, the best way to get even is to stop buying their stuff.

I don't really care either way on these issues, so I argue them rather poorly I'm sure. In short I don't support the DMCA. I just thought I'd throw something out there cuz I'm really, really bored right now. People just need to step back a second and see it from their side too, that's all.
 
"Well it IS Nintendo's device"

No, it's not. They can want a "razors and blades" model all they want, but they do not own my GBA, and I'll develop for it if I #### well want to. Until a judge says otherwise, I consider use of the logo for freeware development to be fair use.

"it IS their right to let whomever they want develop for it"

Yes, that's correct. It's also *not* their right to arbitrarily stop people from developing for it.

"People can't just go around making games for it and selling them without Nintendo's permission. That's kinda sorta part of how they make their profits."

Nintendo isn't entitled to profits any more than you or I are entitled to profits. If their business model sucks, they don't get to arbitrarily decide that anyone undermining it is breaking the law. Not that they haven't tried - Blockbuster, Bung, Tengen, and Galoob can attest to that.

"I guess what I'm trying to say (and not very well I might add) is this. Nintendo, MS, Sony, they can do whatever the #### they want. We have no right to any of their stuff."

Right, we don't - until we BUY IT. I can swallow the "software is licensed, not purchased" BS (BS because everyone but MS is expected to treat it like a sold product), but when I buy a piece of hardware, it's *mine*, and I should be allowed to play games on it, take a soldering iron to it, write programs for it, use it as the weight on a Foucault pendulum, or do anything else with it that wouldn't otherwise be illegal.

"If you don't agree with the way they control their technology, make your own system and support it."

I don't agree with them having the legal ability to enforce that level of control at all, regardless of how they use it. The only way they had it before was through patenting the access control mechanisms and doing goofy things with copyright and trademarks (which more likely than not would have been defeated in court; see Sega v. Accolade).

"People just need to step back a second and see it from their side too, that's all."

I do see it from their side - it looks like this:

"We want to be able to implement arbitrary restrictions on the way our customers use our products, because if we don't we might not make massive gobs of money. I know we already get government-granted monopolies on our products, but that's not enough - we want to control them after the customer buys them too."
 
I agree with ex, all the systems i OWN are MINE, so I can do with them as i please, meaning if I wanted to hack at the system, I can because I own that particular piece of equipment.

As for the programming aspect, its true, the companies try to monopolize the market so small time developers cant make a break, or when they company sees what the small time developers are doing they buy them out.
 
looks like Blizzard Entertainment managed to shut down bnetd.org, a project to play Blizzard games without using Battle.net. Any thoughts about this?
 
ExCyber, I must say you know a considerable amount more than I do about this. I actually do side with you for the most part. I don't like these people having the control they do. I'm more playing Devil's Advocate than anything else. So don't take it personally. But I do notice that when this age-old discussion gets heated people tend to close their eyes and dig in for the battle. Honestly put yourself in Nintendo's shoes and tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you could. Maybe you'll piss some legit people off, but in the end, most people don't give a hoot and never will. That's where their money comes from. And that's always the bottom line. Somehow I don't think Nintendo or anyone else is in it for fun :)
 
"I'm more playing Devil's Advocate than anything else."

Somebody's got to do it. :)

"But I do notice that when this age-old discussion gets heated people tend to close their eyes and dig in for the battle."

Yeah, I generally feel the same thing about the "piracy" debate in general. I'm just much more one-sided on Title 17 Chapter 12 because I can't see any actual good that comes out of it - it seems to vastly favor corporations that control software and media platforms without giving any solid protection to fair use or actual content authors. Basically, it allows the company that controls the platform to screw over the two most important parties in the business: the author and the customer. Next thing you know, they'll probably turn around and talk about how the DMCA is to protect authors' rights. Bah.

"Honestly put yourself in Nintendo's shoes and tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if you could."

Nintendo has every reason to take advantage of as much control as they can, which is exactly why the amount of control they're allowed to have needs to be limited. Kind of like governments, actually...

"Maybe you'll piss some legit people off, but in the end, most people don't give a hoot and never will."

I'm just waiting for someone to cross that line... sooner or later they'll want more control than most people are willing to put up with. Remember, if they had their way, you'd never own anything, and you'd have to pay-per-use on everything. There is a bill on the drawing board to move toward this in a really, really sick way. I don't think it has a chance of passing, but that's what plenty of people thought about DMCA...

"Somehow I don't think Nintendo or anyone else is in it for fun"

Well, the companies obviously aren't, but I have a tough time believing that the top designers are doing it just for the money. The crap designers, though...
 
the way i think game compines view people who buy their systems is that you olny have the right to use their system with software and hardware that has been licenced by them for use on it, yes you own that system that's sitting near your tv, but you do NOT own the rights to delvop for their system (that is reserved for the compines who buy the delvelopment packages)

These are not computers at all, there closed systems (try releaseing a gameboy advance that you made yourself and see how fast nintendo will sue your ass into obilion)

Nintendo doesn't care if your makeing your own games then putting them onto an empty cart from the flash advance, the flash advance is not licenced by nintendo and is consiered Illegal hardware to them (and any means of writeing the software) nintendo sees any and all use of these types of things as illegal (even homebrew software) because you are not useing the offical hardware/software.

hopefully this lets you know how nintendo (and other console compines) view things like this

*disclaimer* this post does not show my personal views in any way
 
Well, I was a CS major for two years. And for two years I busted my ass off to create things that could easily be copied and distributed. If my livelyhood depended on something that fragile, I'd grab whatever I could to ensure I got something for it. There's nothing stopping you from doing what you want. There really isn't. If you want to hack badly enough, you will. They're just doing damage control right now--keeping it out of the masses. The hardcore people such as yourself will still be able to get what they need because you have the right contacts and the drive to do it. ####, sometimes that makes it more fun.

You'd be surprised how much this issue bothers me. I flip-flop. I see both sides way too well. Everytime I try and defend the Nintendos of the world the little guy in me cries. I swear, I'm all about the little guy. But that's what a lot of the companies are run by: little guys tryin' to make a living. It kills me that I can't really settle on what I think.

And at the same time I get really pissed off when other people seem to have it so easy and just pick a side. Oh, I wish I could do that. I don't mind when they fight a good fight, but too many people are blinded by their "right to make backups." God those people piss me off. And they're everywhere.

But it certainly is an interesting debate. Intellectual property is so hard to define, and so hard to protect. It will ALWAYS be a cat and mouse game. Us versus them. And people like you will always exist, somewhere.

On a personal note, I thought that GBA flash thingy was quite ballsy. To come out and sell something like that? You can't say they weren't asking for it. That's the kinda thing that should probably lurk in the underground. Every 13 year old who has $150 doesn't need one of those things. And frankly, as long as long as they can't get them, I don't think Nintendo will care about you guys. It seems to be when you step out in the open that people really get pissed off.

And I could talk about this for HOURS. I have in the past. But I have a real life to go live now, so, off I go :)
 
Ok, first off, are you really into knowing about laws and such ExCyber? As it seams you know much about them (even your desc has a law-based spoof).

Next, I back you all the way in what you are saying:

"when I buy a piece of hardware, it's *mine*, and I should be allowed to play games on it, take a soldering iron to it, write programs for it, use it as the weight on a Foucault pendulum, or do anything else with it that wouldn't otherwise be illegal."

What I buy I OWN, its MINE, and I couldn't care what law is passed saying otherwise.

However, like many others on the board here I can understand Nintendos position on this matter. When I first found out about the GBA flash carts, I couldn't believe it. I mean, the system had just come out, and people had already begun a mass pirating/copying/developing scene around it. Nintendo has every right to be going about this the way they are, especially seeing as how the gameboy line of systems is the longest lasting and best selling one ever. Their not just worrying about the GBA either, the GCN they feel could possibly be the next target for piracy, and if they don't at least try and stop what's going on in hand held land before its gets up to their main system they could end up having some major problems.
 
Quote: from Hatecrime69 on 11:41 am on Feb. 22, 2002

Nintendo doesn't care if your makeing your own games then putting them onto an empty cart from the flash advance, the flash advance is not licenced by nintendo and is considered Illegal hardware to them (and any means of writeing the software) nintendo sees any and all use of these types of things as illegal (even homebrew software) because you are not using the offical hardware/software.

Nintendo gets to decide what is legal and what is illegal?
 
ok, lets take this angle to it...

I buy a corvette, has a computer in it right? Closed system, etc...

So I want to go to the dragstrip, so i buy and change the chip in the computer from a company which isn't licensed by GM for their closed system onboard computer.

I then develop software that runs on a laptop that allows me to connect a cable to the onboard computer to change software settings to adjust fuel flow, spark advance, etc... etc....

All of this shit is perfectly legal and GM doesn't have a thing to say about me using unlicensed software.
 
"Ok, first off, are you really into knowing about laws and such ExCyber?"

I prefer to try to figure out what I can rather than merely take someone else's word for it - there are plenty of oft-referenced "laws" that are misunderstood or even completely imaginary.

Unfortunately, the way law works in this country is such that my opinion on what's legal or illegal doesn't really count unless the judge agrees with me, but I suppose that's the way it's got to be for it to work. I just wish I knew of a good free site for researching case law. In any case, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.

"However, like many others on the board here I can understand Nintendos position on this matter."

As can I. They have every reason to want to stop piracy, and copyright gives them that right. I think the truth is, though, that they don't actually want to go through the pre-existing legal channels (i.e. suing individuals for actual direct infringement) because it would be too expensive and time-consuming, and might make them look bad. But they've got to do something, so they go after the distributors of the tools.

I still want to know why nobody seems to go after the release groups, as that seems to be the best target for "damage control" - are they really that well-organized? It seems like I hear about one big bust every few years, but it's always for PC stuff rather than console...

"And at the same time I get really pissed off when other people seem to have it so easy and just pick a side."

For the copyright/piracy debate, I can't stand that either, mostly because said people are more interested in name-calling than discussion. Like I said, I'm biased on the anti-circumvention thing because the "sides" I see to it are:

1) Corporations that control software/media platforms

2) Everyone else

I really fail to see how this balances anyone's rights (including authors) with the priviliges granted to those in control of the platforms.

"If my livelyhood depended on something that fragile, I'd grab whatever I could to ensure I got something for it."

On this note, I'd *really* love to see some stuff based on Street Performer Protocol (skip to page 5 if you don't want to read the background info and justification), and I've even considered trying to put something together to release under that type of system, but I'm kind of busy with other stuff, so it keeps getting pushed aside. In a lot of ways it seems like the perfect way to compensate authors while making "piracy" a non-issue, but I suspect that consumers would be too confused by it to try it, and the big publishers would obviously have no part of it because it completely undermines the current business model for published works.

"hopefully this lets you know how nintendo (and other console compines) view things like this "

You're saying nothing I haven't heard before, but what they think should not determine what is allowed, otherwise websites would be shut down if they accused Nintendo of merely rehashing Pokemon over and over to milk the kids, or published a bad review of the latest Rare game. They have to play by the same rules as everyone else. IBM didn't originally want PC clones either, you know...
 
Gm sells cars, not computers i hardly see how that is a valid angle to it. What i meant was nintendo will persue legal action and they will have good ground to do so
 
"I still want to know why nobody seems to go after the release groups, as that seems to be the best target for 'damage control'"

I never understood that either. Seems to me it would be much easier this way. I find it hard to believe they can't be found.

"On this note, I'd *really* love to see some stuff based on Street Performer Protocol"

This sounds like one of those too-good-to-be-true things. Kinda like the whole TV ratings thing from earlier. Sure, we have better ways, but change is bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. And people are sheep.

"I really fail to see how this balances anyone's rights (including authors) with the priviliges granted to those in control of the platforms."

Yeah, it's quite sad. Usually the people who actually do the grunt work get screwed in the end no matter what.

"IBM didn't originally want PC clones either, you know... "

And Universal Studios didn't want VCRs in 1976 either. But I can't really see it working out for Nintendo the way it did for everyone else. It's just too #### easy these days to massively distribute things. Back in the day it was slightly more difficult. I dare say it's somewhat quicker and deeper damaging when these kinds of things happen today as opposed to 20 years ago.
 
Back
Top