Lewis v. Nintendo
In the case of Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Nintendo claimed that the Game Genie peripheral for the Nintendo Entertainment System constituted a derivative work. The Game Genie was a add-on for the NES which allowed players to enter in codes which altered the byte code of the games they played. For example, the code "SLXPLOVS" would give infinite lives for Super Mario Bros. 3. Nintendo referred to a product by Artic International which would alter Pac-Man and Galaxian cabinets, which was deemed in violation of copyright (Lewis). However, the Artic chip would copy memory from the video game onto itself, which differentiates itself from the Game Genie, which only modifies a data transfer. The case was ruled in favor of Galoob, and Nintendo was prevented from changing future consoles to invalidate peripherals like the Game Genie. Galoob was also awarded $15 million to compensate for a period of time where they were not allowed to sell their product.
This case is important because it means that modifying a data transfer is allowed under copyright, but recording or copying the data is not. You could, for example, release a third party app that lets you alter the equalization of a movie on Amazon Video, but you cannot release software the lets you replicate that same movie.
I think this case was ruled well. In fact, it doesn't make sense to restrict any peripherals to me. In this case, the Game Genie can't be used to pirate or replicate games, but even if it could, I don't think the onus is on the company. In fact, I think it's extremely important that media can be read by the consumer into a modern and DRM-free format. Lots of old video game studios have shut down and their products are unavailable except by second-hand. If the software they produced is only available in cartridges or CDs, those formats will degrade from disk rot or general wear and tear, and ultimately the software will become corrupted and disappear. Since software doesn't have a standard platform-agnostic format like videos, music, or images, ROMs and emulators are important if we want to preserve these parts of technological history. Ripping old code should be encouraged, and out of print software should be made available on places like archive.org. I think Nintendo is really doing a disservice to their developers and to themselves by discouraging the preservation of their own products.
“Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.nintendo of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).” Justia US Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/964/965/341457/.
This case is important because it means that modifying a data transfer is allowed under copyright, but recording or copying the data is not. You could, for example, release a third party app that lets you alter the equalization of a movie on Amazon Video, but you cannot release software the lets you replicate that same movie.
I think this case was ruled well. In fact, it doesn't make sense to restrict any peripherals to me. In this case, the Game Genie can't be used to pirate or replicate games, but even if it could, I don't think the onus is on the company. In fact, I think it's extremely important that media can be read by the consumer into a modern and DRM-free format. Lots of old video game studios have shut down and their products are unavailable except by second-hand. If the software they produced is only available in cartridges or CDs, those formats will degrade from disk rot or general wear and tear, and ultimately the software will become corrupted and disappear. Since software doesn't have a standard platform-agnostic format like videos, music, or images, ROMs and emulators are important if we want to preserve these parts of technological history. Ripping old code should be encouraged, and out of print software should be made available on places like archive.org. I think Nintendo is really doing a disservice to their developers and to themselves by discouraging the preservation of their own products.
“Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.nintendo of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).” Justia US Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/964/965/341457/.
Comments
Post a Comment