> > Everybody has a different perfect world of copyrights and music/movie/video game > > preservation opinion. Why it is that you think yours is better than everyone else's > > to the point of pulling out your dick on our forum and taking a urination that > would > > impress a recently thawed out Austin Powers is a better question than the trolling > > horse shit you are producing. If you have a vastly different opinion than everyone > in > > a community then you probably don't belong in that community even if you are > writing > > a thesis on them. You don't see me ranting on a vegan board about how they should > eat > > meat. You think companies should be dead before their games are emulated. Aaron > > thought 3 years before adding to MAME. I guess I'd go with 7ish. Some other people > > would say 10 etc. Whoopidee doo. Why don't you write a chapter on drug companies > > getting less than 5 years to sell their IP before it gets legally bootlegged and > how > > video games should still be 100 before there is an emulator for their hardware > > because some retard wrote a law about it before video games even existed. Can't > wait > > to read it... > > > Good point, but I have a few questions: > > Why does the USA have copyright laws written into the Constitution?
So they can be amended.
> Does your suggestion (being so important to this site) of copyright, be so construed, > to have no legal duristinction like your argument suggests?
It has logical and human jurisdiction. There's the law and there's what's right, and we're not going to let the games die, which many would have already if we hadn't moved our ass and taken the situation into our own hands.
> So copyright laws have no merit in your opinion and therefore have no moral > obligation?
In the case of arcade games, they're unacceptable by a responsible society that cares about the preservation of their culture and art. If we waited to make a copy of them until after the copyright ran out, they would be unreadable. All of them. So there is absolutely no way to stay within the current law and not have future generations want to piss on our graves.
> Does this stem from the belief that media should be free on the internet?
No. I don't even think it should all be "free" to everyone, I just think a group of people should be able to back the stuff up on hard drives around the world and people who own the real hardware should be able to play on their computer. MAME allows for a backup catalog where enough people can share parts of the workload to where most people don't get burned out and people stay interested in the goal. The more rules that get added the more of a pain in the butt it will be, and if we have to deal with something as retarded as 100 years or whatever it is (close to it) then they just get ignored.