A good friend of DCEmu and co webmaster of the spanish Dreamcast ES website Ron has written a great article about emulation on his site, the article is in spanish but translates great with google, so for many fans of emulation this should be an interesting read.
One aspect that draws my attention more on the retro-scene is none other than the law. As published in past entries, today I would like to address the issue from a perspective more concrete, the author of the emulator, the owner of the system and what is the legal position of the parties and sobe assess all the points where all circumstances.
The computer industry and the video games knows that what he can do more harm or otherwise benefit is the spread of the market system, either through piracy or even taking advantage of the latter increasing sales of hardware units. The debate is long and tense, does anyone know how all this will end?
As I always say, this is a blog and show my views, based on the reading and interpretation of tons of articles and commentaries. Nobody is obliged to juntillas feet to agree with the entry basically is a guide on which factors are combining in the world vintage should be taken into account and not be ignored.
As I explained earlier in the old posts, there is a conflict between owners, licensees and manufacturers, what sells retro and corporations have realized that represents the seam. I also left my mind many times about the attitude regarding the Nintendo (VM) Virtual Machine for its Wii console. The games NES, SNES, N64, MD, Turbographx, etc. ... already generated benefits in his time. What is happening?.
These old games or retro, in his day were distributed on media such as analog or digital tape-based ROM or EPROM cartridge format. The media are beginning to expire and are losing some contents that were paid. Now the manufacturers will not cost anything but distribute charge huge amounts abusive why. If a Mario 64 generated profits in their day, now must continue with production and distribution costs of zero. Are you obligated to support the payment of a product with 20 years in the market?
The developers of emulators, while those working in business as individuals, and users of these emulators have submitted a series of arguments against the allegations made by the industry. The industry obviously wants to protect its products, investment, development and above all commercial exploitation, hence the move to all the controversy, to let you participate in all positions and explaining why this happens and now. When governments defend democracy and freedom in terms of networking and computing, restrictions, prohibitions and censorship are in a hot spot and we are left to retro fans filled.
Facts most common
Opponents of emulation. Prohibit the free emulation.
Argument: The emulators are supportive of piracy.
Reply: It is possible that the emulator can support piracy, as industry has argued, but this fact alone is insufficient to justify its ban. Each user has a responsibility to know whether being breached the legal terms of what they are using.
The emulator can be used for purposes other than piracy completely, like photocopiers can be used for purposes other than copyright infringement. And just as the fact that copiers can be used for copyright infringement is not sufficient to justify banning them, so the fact that emulators can be used for piracy is not sufficient to justify the deemed illegal. Something similar happens with the canon digital levying taxes when you burn your own photos is being treated as if it were a person who makes offender.
Argument: The emulator makes it possible software piracy can escape fighting against circumventing the same measures in the videogame systems.
Reply: emulators such as Connectix VGS does not make software piracy possible to evade the fight against it and against the measures in the video game systems, the industry has argued.
Although version 1.0 of VGS initially may not have included support for the fight against piracy of PlayStation chip, Connectix has issued reports that this omission has been corrected in version 1.1 and later emulator. In any case, the VGS and other emulators what they have done is to hinder piracy, because it is much harder to circumvent anti-piracy software on the measures which in some emulators that if incorporated into a real PlayStation (everything you have to do to defuse the PlayStation and thereby promote and use illegal software piracy simply install a mod-chip that has a cost of 2 € uros so that the entire protection system designed by the manufacturer becomes unusable and leave the system completely open console).
Argument: The emulation using a ROM BIOS that is patented or protected by copyright are illegal.
Reply: Not all emulators illegally use a ROM BIOS with copyrights.
The emulator can be illegal if they use a copy of a literal BIOS protected by copyright, but not all emulators do this. In many emulators that require a BIOS protected by copyright, developers have to reimplement the BIOS from scratch instead of copying verbatim the BIOS (which I will cover in more detail below). If developers rewrite the BIOS "in his own words," so to speak, is not committing an illegal act. Being in possession of the original system protects the law that could make a dump safety of Bios thus not incurring any illegality.
Argument: Emulating proprietary hardware is illegal.
Reply: Emulating proprietary hardware is not illegal, as the industry has argued.
While some emulators, proprietary hardware emulate this in itself is not illegal because the operation of the hardware is usually usually made public. For example, while the Nintendo 64 hardware contains a chip that uses MIPS 4300, this is a processor well documented, in addition to the detailed documentation available on the Internet, most emulators that emulate the Nintendo 64 MIPS 4300 are built around this documentation public.
Write an emulator que se basa en publicly available information is not clearly illegal, although the emulator emulate proprietary hardware.
In the event that the operation of a system is not publicly known, may still be possible to reverse engineer to obtain an understanding of how it works. Zophar's Domain is a popular website where emulation states that reverse engineering a series of emulators is the way in which these were written. This practice is both ethically and legally acceptable, the Supreme Court was called "fair and honest."
In a nutshell: write an emulator based on the results of reverse engineering, although emule proprietary hardware emulator, is not illegal.
Argument: The emulation can lead to the death of hardware development.
Reply: The emulation will not lead to the death of hardware development.
The speed with which you can run emulators a platform in the instructions for another platform is "somewhere between five and 20 times slower" than the rapidity with which the instructions would be executed if they run natively on the platform, such and as they say the claims of Cloanto, which owns a commercial Amiga emulator. The immense success of performance means that emulators not displace the actual development of hardware: the hardware will always be developed because it's much faster to run programs on real hardware in a software emulator that emulates that hardware.
Replica 2: The emulation fact help manufacturers of the systems being emulated.
The industry has argued that the emulators lead to a decrease in sales of the systems being emulated, and in some cases this may end up benefiting the industry. For example, Time magazine reported that Sony lost money on each Xbox and PS2 that was sold. If this is true, and if the industry maintains the accusation that emulators are killing sales is true, then sales of emulators such as Connectix VGS will save money for companies like Sony by reducing the loss that comes with the sale each system.
Another argument that the PC Users Group (an informal group that supports Connectix) has progressed, is that their systems by selling at a loss, companies like Sony had to realize that the real money they earn in this industry comes from sales of software. Logical thinking is that a system that leads out of the market over 5 years ceases to be of interest to commercial exploitation of it in terms of hardware. Without the emulators would be quite complicated to maintain its preservation and dissemination.
Once again, some emulators benefit the industry as a whole by increasing the installed base of users of a system (and therefore increasing the number of potential customers for software that system). Emulation as the VGS also increase the potential market for accessories: for example, the existence of VGS has led to an enterprising company to develop a peripheral device that allows drivers Sony PlayStation connect through an interface with the Macintosh. This ring has led to an increase in sales of PlayStation controllers and the like, but would not be on the market if the VGS did not exist.
The VGS and other emulators benefit consumers without hurting manufacturers systems, in the case of VGS, Connectix said, "that gives Macintosh owners more games to choose between their own Mac and PlayStation and more choice to use these games "without harming directly to Sony. If this is the case, the User Group PlayStation comes to the conclusion then, why Sony is going to sue a company that is expanding to Sony in the market while shielding their rights?. The declaration can be extended to the rest of the industry: why the industry has to be wary of emulators that in some cases, end up benefiting the same rather than damage it?
The following are not so much the arguments that emulators are legal as mitigating factors to be taken into account in any final judgement:
The vast majority of developers emulators condemning software piracy completely. And this is debatable, since they implied there is no doubt a lot of speculation in knowing the terms under which license and was going to use an emulator determined.
The general thrust of the community of emulation is that those who use emulators to run pirated software should be treated with the utmost contempt. One of the creators of UltraHLE, known as RealityMan, was quoted as saying in Wired.com that the UltraHLE that used to run pirated ROMs, are perfect examples of "Lamers, warez slag and other qualifiers." The readme file of UltraHLE put in capital letters that "the perpetrators of ULTRAHLE not condone USE OF ROMS obtained illegally."
This stance in the fight against piracy is not exclusive UltraHLE, most of the websites of emulation, and most of the readme files contain an emulator forceful statements against piracy and believe it is a shame that there are individuals who use emulators for illicit purposes. It is also true that likes nothing more than someone playing for the face, but this software is already home or Homebrew. If you do not want to pay for a game are always the games, remakes and versions, which lacked details that incorporate commercial games. Left said that sometimes it is feasible to find home-made games that surpass in quality to commercial, slowly, slowly but surely open source, licensing LPG / GNU are opening the way forward.
Even sites that illegally distribute ROMs (if any exist), claiming that "to protect the industry, is a self-rule applied emulator between webmasters and programmers not to emulate / distribute [ROM] new games [ that in case of pirates, would result in a decrease of profits for companies - as opposed to piracy of the oldest games, which no longer generate any revenue for companies]. "
To understand this position I am going to put the example of the DS or Sony PSP. There are sites that are devoted entirely to the dump and distribution of roms that can be found on the shelves of any store video games. Obviously, I use a mod-chip to run Homebrew software on the device, but from there to hide behind this option to proceed on the other side to download and use the games that are occurring even generated a debate that seriously harms the objectives of collectors and lovers of retro computing.
The vast majority of emulators are not developed to encourage piracy, but for the technical challenge of writing a program to simulate another system.
The fact that so many emulators are freeware implies that its developers wrote their programs NO to personal profit, but for some other reason, usually the huge technical challenge of writing an emulator. Users are an important component in the community of emulation and "emulators are a hobby," not for any benefit that might arise in the process. That already dealing system owners through its virtual machines and retro compatibility. The latter make huge profits from it.
At the present time, the legal status of software emulation is still a big gray area. There is still no legislation and the contribution of associations of computer users retro, vintage and classic must play a central role. Moreover collectors also have much to say, basically are their natural protectors.
There is nothing explicit in writing the laws governing the legality of emulators, nor are there any precedent in the jurisprudence that the conclusions on the situation of emulators can be extracted. However, that does not mean that the debate on emulators has not yet taken place in the legal field. If you join the canon digital copyrights and use without permission software licenses and the pump can be a colossal magnitude.
There have been a handful of lawsuits related emulators described below, are legally related incidents, one of which is very significant to the extent where it may finally be the case that sets the precedent for all cases to follow.
Atari VS Coleco
In 1983, Coleco company oredenadores, and video games consoles launched the Gemini system, which allowed play software written for the Atari 2600 in a ColecoVision. The Gemini is not so much an emulator as a "clone".
Coleco waited a demand for Atari, but hoped he could win, of course, Atari Coleco sued and won. However, there is little similarity between the Gemini sufficient and modern software emulation to prevent this case will serve as a precedent.
Nintendo VS Epsilon.
This was not a lawsuit in itself: Nintendo never sued and RealityMan Epsilon, and the authors of UltraHLE, but were considering doing so. The same should then apply to manufacturers of mod-chips, the end is the fish that bite the tail.
The company decided not to pursue legal action, but the threat of a lawsuit Nintendo may have been one of the factors that losdesarrolladores took the decision to eliminate UltraHLE Internet a few hours after being initially published.
Nintendo decided to sue, the case undoubtedly has been a precedent for the establishment of a legality of the software emulation.
Sony VS Connectix
In late January 1999, Sony filed a lawsuit against Connectix arguing that the VGS constituted an infringement of intellectual property rights of Sony (possibly because the VGS may contain a binary copy of the BIOS of the PlayStation, as reported in Wired.com).
Since March this year, Sony appears to be on the losing side of the case: two requests were filed against Connectix twice, first to prevent the distribution of Connectix of the VGS and the second to prevent appeared to be using the BIOS for the PlayStation in the emulator, and Sony lost two injunctions.
However, the case has not yet been clearly identified by the courts, so the final verdict remains largely in the air, and commented before the situation so precarious that suffers emulation before the legal system today.
All we know is that this case might well resolve whether emulators are legal and may set the precedent for all cases to follow.
What exactly is the purpose of this debate on all emulators? Discuss some specific examples of modern software emulators and cast a glance at their respective legal statutes.
A contribution that can be useful in reading this: there are two main types of emulators, those using a BIOS copied (original system) and those using a BIOS rewritten or reimplement. As mentioned in a previous section, some emulators for some systems - such as the Amiga and Macintosh - must be able to simulate the system BIOS to work properly. The developers of emulators of these systems have two options when it comes to simulate the BIOS. The first is to rewrite or reimplement the BIOS from zero to its full upward compatibility, in other words, despite the fact that the BIOS already have the system that already exists. Reimplement the BIOS may seem foolish at first, like reinventing the wheel, but is often a necessary procedure when the copyright holders of the original BIOS refuse to license the BIOS for the emulator and that developers can use that version in the emulator - as often happens. Skin that is not the case for Amstrad PLC / Sinclair, which allows long as there is no profit-making use them freely. So it would make sense to charge for a Spectrum emulator or CPC?
Reimplementation aside, another option or most common is that the end user can or have to obtain their own copy of the BIOS. It is quite easy to write a program that can dump the contents of the bios of a computer or console on a disc. If this program can provide the end user of an emulator, and if that user happens to own a computer platform that is emulated, can easily use the BIOS legally. If I have the computer and the original software will not be in breach of any law.
Amiga Forever
Not so much as a single emulator software package Amiga Forever promotes an intriguing approach to legal issues surrounding the emulation. The heart of the package is WinUAE, an Amiga emulator for Windows that requires a copy of the BIOS to run Amiga. Rather than reimplement the BIOS from scratch or requiring end users to purchase your copy of the BIOS, however, Amiga Forever took the only way to approach Amiga International (owners of copyright) to apply for a license to commercialize the BIOS Amiga. Amiga International surprisingly agree, which is why today Cloanto is able to sell an emulator deAmiga to the letter, however, completely legal copy of the BIOS Amiga which guarantees full compatibility Amiga - by 20 € uros.
Executor
An ambitious and semi-functional Macintosh emulator for Windows developers whose comercialziar tried - and, as everybody, told them not to license Apple Macintosh BIOS. This does not prevent them from reimplement the BIOS Mac and create tools from scratch without any disassembly or reverse engineering of the original BIOS. The fact that the BIOS is not Excutor original does not mean that the emulator can not give full compatibility with Mac, but also means that ARDI - the company that developed the product - can, unlike Cloanto, Executor sell without paying fees license to Apple.
Shapeshifter and Basilisk
The opposite of Executor. The developers of this emulator Macintosh also tried and was not granted leave BIOS Apple Macintosh, which did not prevent developers continue to proceed with the work of emulator. It pursues a touch more practical than the developers Execute made, however: instead of using a copy of the BIOS Mac reimplement, Shapeshifter comes with a small utility program called "Save ROM", the user can run on a Mac right to copy your BIOS on a disc. Once the user has the BIOS, may add in Shapeshifter, which DEVELOP original copy provided by the lip.
UAE UAE
The Unix Amiga emulator, like Shapeshifter, comes with a utility to burn ROM that you can run into a real Amiga to obtain a copy of the BIOS Amiga. Then, you can now proceed to implement the UAE using that copy of the BIOS.
Wine
Wine Windows emulator for Linux is still a work in progress, is not so much an emulator but a "compatibility layer of Windows." The developers of Wine reimplement the Windows API from scratch, so it should not arise legal issues with Microsoft if the program is successful in the future.
Below these are three possible solutions put forward most often by those familiar with the discussion of emulation:
Total Ban
This is the solution supported by most in the industry and best summed up the proposals Nintendo spokeswoman Beth Llewelyn, when she simply claimed that "you emulators are illegal." Because the emulators encourage piracy and illegal may contain material that is protected by copyright, this solution is proposed for all emulators should be banned entirely. So Nintendo and other companies scrape VMs their current systems and backward?
Partial Ban
This solution proposes that all emulators should not be banned. Admittedly, it is possible emulators that can promote piracy - but this in itself is not sufficient justification for the ban, like beer stimulates alcoholism, but this in itself is not sufficient justification for banning beer. However, this solution admits that emulators who break copyright - in particular, emulators that incorporate copyright or parties illegally in its BIOS code - indeed, should be prohibited because they are unquestionably a violation of the law.
Let us remember that if I have the original system's original software and then practiced dump the BIOS is not necessarily constitute any crime and the use of emulator in question
NO ban
This solution, supported by some users "hardcore" of the community of emulation, proposed that emulators should not be banned at all, mainly because most developers emulators make them itself for fun and not in the spirit and for-profit.
"While it is clearly illegal to sell or download pirated video games," Chris Taylor writes in Time magazine, "it remains unclear whether the same restrictions apply to the emulator software, including Sony and Nintendo make clear in his complaint." In fact, has not yet reached a decision legally binding on emulators - but we have already reached our own conclusion: both support the solution and re-settlement of the partial ban. It is the general opinion. Most software emulators are totally legal and not as alleged by the industry, that of branded illegal.
The emulation software in some cases can encourage and facilitate piracy, but my opinion is that this in itself is not sufficient to justify its ban. My reasoning is simple: while the emulators can be used illegally, because well, but also have many legitimate uses. Mac users, for example, may depend on the use of a PC application occasionally and from time to time; Virtual PC provides a perfectly legitimate way to run applications on your Windows PC Macintosh. Like the weapons may be used to commit murder, can also be used legitimately, like bridges may be used for suicide but can also be used legitimately, so that emulators can be used to run pirated software - but also can be used legitimately. The fact that emulators can be used for piracy is not sufficient justification, in my opinion, banning them.
I do agree that emulators should be prohibited in certain circumstances. For example, all emulators that are distributed with a copy of a literal ROM BIOS with copyrights are illegal because they are violating international copyright laws. Moreover, the emulators that can have a copy of the BIOS to run, but require users to provide a legitimate copy of the BIOS, or emulators to reimplement the BIOS, are perfectly legal.
I also disagree with statements by Connectix that "how this developed an emulator built or is unrelated to the issue." On the contrary, the way this developed an emulator or how it is constructed is very relevant to the issue. If the expertise of the system being emulated are obtained through publicly available sources, I consider the legal power to write an emulator for that system. Similarly, it is legal to learn more about a system through reverse engineering. However, I believe it is illegal to write an emulator of a system if the system technical information was obtained through illegal means, such as intercepting secret internal documents from the company that manufactures the system.
Of course, I believe that the publication of pirated software on the Internet for those who use emulators as appropriate platform to run software pirate is unequivocally illegal.
Lastly, I believe that if a developer is hypothetically emulators sentenced as guilty before a court for any of the reasons that the industry argues, the motivation of developers with all technical problems with the individual who is the time to write a program - should be a mitigating factor to avoid being tried or punished and most especially when it does so with the sole intention and educational purposes presevacionales.
My general view is that software emulation has considerable potential. I hope that all future court decisions or legislation on emulation will be able, at the same time protect the legal rights of all parties involved as well as preserve the emulation technology that now enjoy. As the events currently being developed respect for the film industry and music, performance and excessive government entities management splashed our world and inevitably this will be done with complicated material over the Internet, is now when it comes to really consider the implementation of healthy hobby of collecting vintage.
Awesome Article, give your views via the comments
