dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) (04/06/91)
After seeing the "Gameboy emulator," I realized that it was in some way connected with Jez San and Argonaut software. I contacted him about it and he asked me to forward the following message to Usenet: ----------------------- That gameboy emulator was written before we ever saw a gameboy, as an experiment. It is not genuinely gameboy compatible. In fact, its nothing even close to a gameboy. It is in fact a z80 emulator, the PD one from 'simcpm' with a gameboy IFF picture on the front. The Tetris isn't the real tetris, its a 2-day effort written in z80 code. Note, a gameboy isnt a z80, and the 'gameboy-emulator' doesnt in fact emulate a gameboy at all. Above all. This program should not have been pirated. It was an in-house experiment. Never distributed. Whoever did, shouldn't have. Its amazing how much damage people can do by pirating programs they dont own. Please, forward it [this message] onto usenet and ask for the files to be removed and everyone's copies to be destroyed. Many thanks, -- Jez. ----------------------- -Dan dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu
jlehmann@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jonas A. Lehmann) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr6.033226.5044@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) writes: > >gameboy isnt a z80, and the 'gameboy-emulator' doesnt in fact emulate >a gameboy at all. That's good to know ... but does it really emulate a Z80 100% or close enough? > >Above all. This program should not have been pirated. It was an in-house >experiment. Never distributed. Whoever did, shouldn't have. Its amazing >how much damage people can do by pirating programs they dont own. > >-Dan >dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu I agree the program probably shouldn't have been released since it didnt work and the fact that it was distributed made a lot of people waste time. It was an experiment....wonder who let the experiment leak out. Ok. Now here's the thing I don't understand .. it was an experiment and then he/she says "Its amazing how much DAMAGE people can do by pirating .... well I agree 100% with you on piracy in general but in this case what kind of damage are we talking about. The software house was experimenting and the experiments werent going to be distributed so what damage was made ... the only thing wasted was some bytes over internet. I still might download it to see what it looks like since everyone is talking about it. The biggest question is why us amiga users would EVER wanna emulate a piece of trash system like GAMEBOY aimed at some inferiorly minded sub-teenagers?! Take Good Care - Jonas (jlehmann@wpi.wpi.edu) -
jlehmann@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jonas A. Lehmann) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr6.033226.5044@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) writes: > >Above all. This program should not have been pirated. It was an in-house >experiment. Never distributed. Whoever did, shouldn't have. Its amazing >how much damage people can do by pirating programs they dont own. > >-Dan >dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Here's something more that struck me while reading the message. If a program is in development and is not copyrighted yet (well it aint finished) and someone from the company spreads it ... are we REALLY talking about piracy here .. what laws (copyright,TM,R) are making it illegal .... What amazes me about piracy is that it seems to me like it all starts from WITHIN the software houses!
dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr6.070159.13631@wpi.WPI.EDU> jlehmann@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jonas A. Lehmann) writes: >In article <1991Apr6.033226.5044@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) writes: > >> >>Above all. This program should not have been pirated. It was an in-house >>experiment. Never distributed. Whoever did, shouldn't have. Its amazing >>how much damage people can do by pirating programs they dont own. >> >>-Dan >>dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu > Please don't mis-quote me! While I did post that message, I made it very clear that I was forwarding a message from the author of the emulator, Jez San. Please convey that in some way when you quote from the message. Thank You -Dan
gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) (04/07/91)
jlehmann@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jonas A. Lehmann) writes: >I agree the program probably shouldn't have been released since it >didnt work and the fact that it was distributed made a lot of people >waste time. It was an experiment....wonder who let the experiment leak out. >Ok. Now here's the thing I don't understand .. it was an experiment and >then he/she says "Its amazing how much DAMAGE people can do by >pirating .... well I agree 100% with you on piracy in general but in >this case what kind of damage are we talking about. The software >house was experimenting and the experiments werent going to be distributed so >what damage was made ... the only thing wasted was some bytes over internet. I'm not sure if it has, it proobably hasnt, but this file probably did have the ability to cause damage to the author. One of the main reasons is the name Nintendo which did appear on the graphic screen. If they wanted to they could build a case out of this, and whether they win or lose it would cost lots of damage in terms of time and money to the author(s)... As for why would anyone like to emulate the Gameboy....Well I know there are some people out there (Like me) who happen to collect emulators to "show them off" to people. Part of the "Amiga can do just about anything" feeling :).. In fact if nobody wanted to emulate inferior systems there would be no A-Max, bridgeboard, etc , etc...Because you need a superior computer (SUch as the Amiga) in order to emulate an inferior computer with any degree of accuracy...
dzenc@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) (04/07/91)
From Jez San: (Please indicate that if you quote this message) ------------------------- To Jonas - We certainly didn't let the experiment leak out. We have [not] distributed this program nor allowed anyone to have a copy of it. Its almost probable that personal disks were removed without permission possibly by an unknown visitor, and then uploaded onto a bbs. The fact that someone got away with doing that is inexcusable.... but what makes it worse is that nowhere on the program did it say it was PD or shareware. So rather than try to find out if the program is freely redesitributable, which is wasn't, people just copied it and mailed it all over usenet and bbs's. Dont you think thats rather unethical and stupid of people. Its not usual to assume something's PD until proven otherwise. You should assume it belongs to someone unless it says its PD! And as for the 'damage' i was referring to, I meant of the experiment itself. We don't want all our private experiments being broadcast around. Where would our research go if everyone gets a pirate copy of it and pirates it? It turned out that all our assumptions about how a gameboy worked were totally wrong, and that the 'emulator' didnt. Even more reason why we wouldnt want copies of it floating around. it doesnt work. Simple. It was an experiment that we shelved. Doesn't give people an excuse to pirate it without permission, whether we shelved it or not! All I ask is that everyone who owns it destroys all copies of it. Any BBS owners stop it from being downloaded. It has no value. It simply doesnt do anything people would ever want. Even the Tetris it came with isnt a real tetris, nor even a worthwhile game to play. We simply dont want obsolete experiments of ours being distributed. (or current ones for that matter). thank you for your support. -- Jez. ------------------------
ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) (04/09/91)
>From Jez San: (Please indicate that if you quote this message) > >by an unknown visitor, and then uploaded onto a bbs. The fact that >someone got away with doing that is inexcusable.... but what makes >it worse is that nowhere on the program did it say it was PD >or shareware. So rather than try to find out if the program >is freely redesitributable, which is wasn't, people just >copied it and mailed it all over usenet and bbs's. Dont you think >thats rather unethical and stupid of people. Its not usual to >assume something's PD until proven otherwise. You should assume >it belongs to someone unless it says its PD! I'd like to see a legal argument on this Jez, as it is not clear from the information I have read that unattributed works are in fact copyrightable. Besides, didn't you say that this was a *derivative* work from one of the widely-distributed PD/Freeware/shareware CP/M simulators? If so, you are on fairly shakey ground there. The laws governing derivative works when applied to software are not well defined. >Where would our research go if everyone gets a pirate copy of it and pirates >it? Happens all the time, and it is the company's responsibility to protect their research. This is not to say that theft is right, but I do not see this case as very clear-cut at all. -- Ian Farquhar Phone : + 61 2 805-9400 Office of Computing Services Fax : + 61 2 805-7433 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : + 61 2 805-7420 Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (04/09/91)
jlehmann@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jonas A. Lehmann) writes: >Here's something more that struck me while reading the message. >If a program is in development and is not copyrighted yet (well it aint >finished) and someone from the company spreads it ... are we REALLY >talking about piracy here .. what laws (copyright,TM,R) are making >it illegal .... Just because a program or other work is in development does not mean that it is not copyright-protected. We regularly put copyright notices into files early in the development phase... in light of this discussion, that indeed seems like a good thing to do in general.
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (04/10/91)
From article <1443@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, by ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar): > I'd like to see a legal argument on this Jez, as it is not clear from > the information I have read that unattributed works are in fact > copyrightable. Besides, didn't you say that this was a *derivative* "Works-in-progress" are always copyrighted while under construction. If someone swipes an unfinished manuscript from your office, you're indeed protected by the copyright laws. Even if you haven't worked on that manuscript for two years (due to massive case of writer's block, or simply because that manuscript didn't "work"). Otherwise, somebody could break into your house, steal something, and publish it without fear of recourse. Not a problem for you, perhaps. But some people would pay to publish Stephen King's grocery list, much less the unfinished works, false starts, etc. in his "trunk", and the law provides protection. Jez San specifically said that this was an incomplete experiment that his folks were working on, that got swiped from his office. Sounds pretty clear-cut to me. Here in the States, at least. Dunno about there in Oz. > Happens all the time, and it is the company's responsibility to protect > their research. Somebody breaks down your house door while you're gone, and steals your silverware. It's your fault for not locking the silverware into a vault and hiring a security guard. Right? Right? Well, that's the reasoning you're using. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
mmoore@ux.acs.umn.edu (Malcolm Diallo Moore) (04/11/91)
I have one question: Why the hell would anybody want to emulate a GAMEBOY? If you want a Gameboy, go *buy* one.
ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) (04/12/91)
In article <00671246704@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >"Works-in-progress" are always copyrighted while under construction. If >someone swipes an unfinished manuscript from your office, you're indeed >protected by the copyright laws. Even if you haven't worked on that >manuscript for two years (due to massive case of writer's block, or simply >because that manuscript didn't "work"). Otherwise, somebody could break >into your house, steal something, and publish it without fear of recourse. >Not a problem for you, perhaps. But some people would pay to publish >Stephen King's grocery list, much less the unfinished works, false starts, >etc. in his "trunk", and the law provides protection. Copyright law is *never* as clear cut as it appears, especially when the work crosses international boundaries (and especially when it enters the US.) My main point was that it was admitted that this was a derived work from another source, and again this is an area in which the prevailing color is deepest grey. Unless substantial changes were made to the program (which I find unlikely as this was a quick and nasty experiment), then Argonaut's copyright on the program is worthless. >Jez San specifically said that this was an incomplete experiment that his >folks were working on, that got swiped from his office. Sounds pretty >clear-cut to me. Here in the States, at least. Dunno about there in Oz. He said might have been swiped. He was speculating that was what happenned. Don't turn speculations into facts. And yes, Australia is a signatory to the Berne convention, and probably takes it a lot more seriously than it should. -- Ian Farquhar Phone : + 61 2 805-9400 Office of Computing Services Fax : + 61 2 805-7433 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : + 61 2 805-7420 Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au
egallant@amiglynx.UUCP (Eric Gallant) (04/15/91)
I agree...when you have access to huge disk based games, with several thousand colors, why go to these lengths to play lo-res, black and white games? Even more puzzling- this is a sign of the downfall of western civilization , that someone with this kind of programming skill would devote so much time and effort to a project so superfluous and futile...and furthermore, that so many others would be interested in it!
hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) (04/18/91)
> I agree...when you have access to huge disk based games, with >several thousand colors, why go to these lengths to play lo-res, black >and white games? > Even more puzzling- this is a sign of the downfall of western civilization >that someone with this kind of programming skill would devote so much time >and effort to a project so superfluous and futile...and furthermore, that so >many others would be interested in it! > On the contrary, this kind of programming attempt is the true-hacker attitude... If it's there I'll hack it, if it's not I'll hack it together. The reason *others* want to play a gameboy on an Amiga is because it is "neato".