Interview with ConsoleClassiX - the online ROM rental service

top-30-best-video-games-of-the-90s-best-retro-games.jpg

A few weeks back, we told you about a rather unique service called ConsoleClassix, who allows players to enjoy a large variety of ROMs in exchange for a paid subscription. This service is considered to be legal by its owner due to the fact that players don't actually get to save the ROM files on their computers, instead, games are loaded in RAM and lost when the emulator shuts down (thus considered to be a 'rental service'). Additionally, for each instance of a game running at a given time, ConsoleClassix actually owns a physical copy.

We have contacted Aaron Ethridge, founder and owner at ConsoleClassix, who kindly accepted to answer our questions.

Interview with Aaron Ethridge @ ConsoleClassix


Q1: Can you describe ConsoleClassiX in a few sentences, for those of our readers who haven't yet heard of it?

Console Classix is a video game rental service. It works much like Red Box, but the “renter” doesn't get physical possession of the game they are renting at the time. The game is also electronically delivered to them, in much the same way a Netflix video is. Philosophically, ethically, and legally, Console Classix works just like Blockbuster. (Well, like an online Blockbuster that didn't go out of business.)



Q2: How did you come up with this idea? Some of our users have called it 'brilliant'.

Although it may offend some people, I honestly believe I was inspired. Me and a partner of mine were trying to work on a way to legally sell ROMs to people, but the gaming industry seemed... we'll say “resistant”... to the idea. Finally, after a long night of discussion, I gave up and went to bed. As soon as my head hit the pillow, it struck me: we wouldn't sell the games, we would rent them. After that, the legal chips fell right into place.



Q3: How profitable is your service? Do you make a living off of it? Do you have any employees to help you with the business?

It was quite profitable in the past. Interest in retro-gaming seems to wax and wane. At our high point, I worked for CC full time and had four employees working with me in an office we owned. That was years ago, however. Everyone has moved on, and I maintain it alone now. It pays it's own bills, but not a great deal more.

I hope to change that in time (by adding newer systems and games). I don't have a great deal of spare time to work on it at the moment, however. I'm a full-time network engineer and novelist. (I also work on video games when I get the chance.) I want to build CC back up, but it will probably be a few more months before I can really get started.



Q4: Do you believe ConsoleClassiX to be in a kind of gray area, from a legal standpoint?

Not at all. It's completely black and white. We own the games, so we have the legal right to rent them out. We have the right to let people play them on PC, so we have the right to copy them off the carts. The law is completely (and clearly) on our side.



Q5: How would you react if Nintendo or other big corporations became serious about taking the matter to court?

We would do our best to fight them. For their part, they would be extremely foolish to try it. At the moment, most people believe what we're doing is in the “gray” at the very least (if not simply illegal). If we were sued and lost, none of the countess illegal ROM sites on the Internet would vanish. However, if we were sued and won, Netflix (and countless other Mom and Pop sites) would offer a service like ours within days of the verdict.



Q6: Do you welcome publicity from big sites such as Ars Technica giving you a lot of attention, or would you rather stay in the shadows?

My attitude is: Shout about us from the rooftops!

The argument could be made that the more attention we get, the more likely we are to be sued, but my counter-point would be: the more money we have in our “war chest” the more likely we would be to win.



Q7: How do you plan on growing where your direct competition is piracy, and games are being more and more readily available?

A lot of people like to do the right thing. They also like to know they're not going to get “WannaCry” or some other terrible virus when they download something. We've never seen the pirate sites as competition. They don't offer the same product we do. (Even if the product is similar.)

That was my theory when I decided to start CC. A lot of people laughed at the idea. Then CC made a great deal of money, and they stopped laughing.

The business model could withstand competition when we started it up in 2001, and it can withstand it now.



Q8: A few members from our community signed up for an account at ConsoleClassix after reading our article, but they ran into a few issues with the website (expired certificate, plain text passwords, etc.) Do you plan to make improvements to the website, as a response to criticism?

Yes! The site has “decayed” during the past 12 months.(My primary gig at the moment is network engineering for a tier 2 ISP, and I've been VERY busy during the last year. I hope to get those issues fixed before January 2019. Lord willing, I'll find the time.)



Q9: Do you have any long term plans for expansion, perhaps adding more games, or systems? Is there anything your users should look forward to?

Yes! I really want to get CC moving forward again. There is a great deal we can add now. Years have gone by since our last major update and technological advancements have made it possible to use our model (potentially) with systems like the PlayStation.

I have a lot of plans. Just not a lot of time ATM.



Q10: Are you much of a gamer yourself? What's your all-time top 3 favorite games?

I am. And, this is a hard question. No matter what I say, I'll get cheers and boos. Lol.

For console, I would probably say:
- The Legend of Zelda
- Super Mario World
- Fire Emblem (for the GBA)

For PC, let's say:
- Quest for Glory (I – IV, V was painful)
- Privateer (the old Origin game – I also just started playing Elite Dangerous. I want VR...)
- Dwarf Fortress (I've only been playing for a few years, but I love it)

There are a great deal more than that, obviously (and, my answers might be different tomorrow), but those are some of my favorites.



End of interview


If you liked this interview, you might also enjoy the previous issues in our series of exclusive interviews:

:arrow: ConsoleClassix.com: if you are intrigued, check out their site to learn more
 

ShadowOne333

QVID PRO QVO
Editorial Team
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
12,184
Trophies
2
XP
33,690
Country
Mexico
OP said:
Q5: How would you react if Nintendo or other big corporations became serious about taking the matter to court?
We would do our best to fight them. For their part, they would be extremely foolish to try it.
Fucking YES!
This is how Nintendo should be treated.
Fuck your empire, Nintendo.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,841
Country
Poland
Np! Basically, my objection to the service at hand here’s is that drm had to be bypassed to dump carts + emulators are designed to run those dumps without triggering anti-piracy, which itself is arguably in violation of law.
My objection to your objection is a little bit more technical. Let's take the case of the NES - the actual DRM implemented in the system was particularly useless and entirely hardware-side. The CIC chip (10NES) would periodically ask for a key contained in the cartridge and, if prompted, the cart would provide it. Thing is, if the system doesn't ask for it, the game is never prompted to provide it and the CPU reset interrupt is never sent. The way to "circumvent" it is to "not ask", so the service doesn't have to do anything at all. In fact, not all NES systems even include the chip - the top-loading revision doesn't utilise DRM at all because it turned out to be useless. It's hard for me to justify attacking a copy of a NES game on DRM grounds when the DRM was removed by Nintendo themselves. There is no copy protection for the games, only copy protection for *hardware cartridges*, mostly because Nintendo wanted to prevent the production of counterfeit carts. As it stands, you can dump an entire NES cartridge and play it all the way through without ever encountering the DRM at all. There's no "copy" protection so much as a "reproduction protection". You don't have to "circumvent" it in any way, you can just ignore it because you're not running a counterfeit cartridge. Do you get my meaning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeamScriptKiddies

blahblah

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
1,132
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
1,472
Country
United States
My objection to your objection is a little bit more technical. Let's take the case of the NES - the actual DRM implemented in the system was particularly useless and entirely hardware-side. The CIC chip (10NES) would periodically ask for a key contained in the cartridge and, if prompted, the cart would provide it. Thing is, if the system doesn't ask for it, the game is never prompted to provide it and the CPU reset interrupt is never sent. The way to "circumvent" it is to "not ask", so the service doesn't have to do anything at all. In fact, not all NES systems even include the chip - the top-loading revision doesn't utilise DRM at all because it turned out to be useless. It's hard for me to justify attacking a copy of a NES game on DRM grounds when the DRM was removed by Nintendo themselves. There is no copy protection for the games, only copy protection for *hardware cartridges*, mostly because Nintendo wanted to prevent the production of counterfeit carts. As it stands, you can dump an entire NES cartridge and play it all the way through without ever encountering the DRM at all. There's no "copy" protection so much as a "reproduction protection". You don't have to "circumvent" it in any way, you can just ignore it because you're not running a counterfeit cartridge. Do you get my meaning?

The effectiveness of the protection does not impact the protection under law, though. Any protection that has to be bypassed is sufficient.

There is game level copy protection, but it was designed to impact copiers - floppy disk adapters. Lots of games used that, Mother 1 most famously. Emulators are designed so as to not trigger those protections for the purpose of enabling games to be played. That act is legally questionable.
 
Last edited by blahblah,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,841
Country
Poland
The effectiveness of the protection does not impact the protection under law, though. Any protection that has to be bypassed is sufficient.

There is game level copy protection, but it was designed to impact copiers - floppy disk adapters. Lots of games used that, Mother 1 most famously. Emulators are designed so as to not trigger those protections for the purpose of enabling games to be played. That act is legally questionable.
"Questionable" is right. It would have to be done on a case by case basis, and I doubt anyone has time for that. I also don't really consider emulation to be "circumventing" anything, the express purpose of an emulator is to behave precisely, or as closely as possible, to the original machine - one would expect it to not trip those mechanism as the real machine wouldn't either. So yes, "questionable" fits the bill. The way I see it, the clear-cut case of a DRM-based complaint would be intentionally removing the features from the software, which isn't taking place, or tricking the DRM, which may or may not be taking place, depending on how you look at it. The "effectiveness" was not my angle, rather the "purpose". The idea of including the chip in question was to prevent the machine from running unlicensed cartridges, not to protect the contents of the cartridges as the content was easily accessible, as with any ROM chip - you can just desolder it and read it. There are different mechanisms that protect the image itself, the "Suicide Battery" is a pretty infamous method. That's neither here nor there though, we're going wildly off-topic with that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeamScriptKiddies

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,841
Country
Poland
@blahblah @Foxi4 I like both of you.
Having this lengthy discussion even after halfway through you were nearly killing each other. And at the end even getting somewhere. That's no critic. That was respect for your staying power and curiosity to make legal arguments.
Keep it on.
I will have a discussion with anyone about anything as long as it's civil. I expect a modicum of respect and effort in a discussion, as long as good points are being made, it should go on. I don't have a side here, I'm merely interested in the subject matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiger21820

Costello

Headmaster
OP
Administrator
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Messages
14,202
Trophies
4
XP
19,718
You can't just end the debate saying "I'm right, talk to a lawyer" Do you know how much it costs to talk to a lawyer? :P And just to prove an internet argument?
If you aren't a lawyer yourself then why would you know any better than Foxi4?

If we have a lawyer in the room please speak up now, haha (you never know)
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,841
Country
Poland
You can't just end the debate saying "I'm right, talk to a lawyer" Do you know how much it costs to talk to a lawyer? :P And just to prove an internet argument?
If you aren't a lawyer yourself then why would you know any better than Foxi4?

If we have a lawyer in the room please speak up now, haha (you never know)
He made a couple of good points, however it could be argued that the service already addressed them with their access restriction scheme. As we've argued earlier, at no point in time does an illegal copy exist in the chain of distribution, unless we count the intermittent period between the server serving the image and the client receiving it. It would certainly be "better" if the server simply provided access to the actual cartridges, but I fear that this would defeat the archival purpose of the site as it would dramatically lower the lifespan of the games stored. Regardless of the conclusion, I think it is commendable that the author of this system did his best to provide access to long-lost and often unavailable software in the least shady way he could think of, it's certainly better than outright piracy. I resonate with the project because I too would like to open a video game museum in the future and I certainly wouldn't want to keep the games under lock and key - they are to be enjoyed. I see very little difference between this service and a museum that charges an entry fee - the lights need to stay on. Now, admittedly, I would utilise original hardware because I'm a sucker for purism, but that's neither here nor there. It's kind of funny, I had a similar setup in mind before ever hearing about this website, except delivering the images directly to native systems, along the lines of OpenPS2Loader via the Ethernet, so that the client machine actually reads the software as-is, but that's all in imagination land as well - perhaps something to think about when I retire and become an old fart just wasting time enjoying old games.
 

TeamScriptKiddies

Licensed Nintendo (indie) Game Developer
Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,970
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Planet Earth :P
XP
1,703
Country
United States
@blahblah @Foxi4 I like both of you.
Having this lengthy discussion even after halfway through you were nearly killing each other. And at the end even getting somewhere. That's no critic. That was respect for your staying power and curiosity to make legal arguments.
Keep it on.

Reading their debate earlier on, I honestly expected this thread to get closed because things were getting pretty heated between them. I'm glad to see you're both being civil now, that's no easy task from going to ready to kill eachother to being respectful in an internet setting. Great work! This isn't meant to be sarcastic either, its not very common in internet culture that you see a nasty debate like this turn civil.
 

blahblah

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
1,132
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
1,472
Country
United States
"Questionable" is right. It would have to be done on a case by case basis, and I doubt anyone has time for that. I also don't really consider emulation to be "circumventing" anything, the express purpose of an emulator is to behave precisely, or as closely as possible, to the original machine - one would expect it to not trip those mechanism as the real machine wouldn't either. So yes, "questionable" fits the bill. The way I see it, the clear-cut case of a DRM-based complaint would be intentionally removing the features from the software, which isn't taking place, or tricking the DRM, which may or may not be taking place, depending on how you look at it. The "effectiveness" was not my angle, rather the "purpose". The idea of including the chip in question was to prevent the machine from running unlicensed cartridges, not to protect the contents of the cartridges as the content was easily accessible, as with any ROM chip - you can just desolder it and read it. There are different mechanisms that protect the image itself, the "Suicide Battery" is a pretty infamous method. That's neither here nor there though, we're going wildly off-topic with that one.

I could get a jury to go for it. And I’d bet that at some point, in some way, there is evidence of a programmer who works on an emulator making purposeful decisions to evade anti-piracy detection and saying as much publicly.

That the goal of an emulator is to behave like original hardware isn’t really relevant - I could get a jury to go for this and it would survive appeal.

There are various anti-dump methods in console carts. Some are designed as simple attacks on copiers that have built in dumpers. Some are more eloborate. One could argue that the presence of any anti dump method means that desoldering and reading in a programmer violates DMCA - it’s not really an argument, really, it’s the plain language of the law. That’s the one that’s going to screw these guys.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You can't just end the debate saying "I'm right, talk to a lawyer" Do you know how much it costs to talk to a lawyer? :P And just to prove an internet argument?
If you aren't a lawyer yourself then why would you know any better than Foxi4?

If we have a lawyer in the room please speak up now, haha (you never know)

Fair enough. I have a background in law, but I do not practice.
 
Last edited by blahblah,
  • Like
Reactions: TeamScriptKiddies

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,841
Country
Poland
Reading their debate earlier on, I honestly expected this thread to get closed because things were getting pretty heated between them. I'm glad to see you're both being civil now, that's no easy task from going to ready to kill eachother to being respectful in an internet setting. Great work! This isn't meant to be sarcastic either, its not very common in internet culture that you see a nasty debate like this turn civil.
My stance is that the Internet was designed by nasty people for nasty people. :P If a heated debate leads to interesting results, it shouldn't be interrupted unless it's expressly against the rules. I guess the long-term result of the debate is that DRM is anti-consumer cancer as I consider backing up software to be an inalienable statutory right, which is why I have a problem with the DMCA as a whole. I also prefer to follow the letter of the law, not the "spirit" or "intent", because I'm not a mind reader. Following the alternative route almost always ends with horrible decisions that ultimately hurt consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeamScriptKiddies

kingfrost

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
255
Trophies
0
Age
32
XP
316
Country
United States
So I was reading the old GTA Online threads because of RDR Online being announced and it seems that a lot of users here are just biased toward the publisher or developer suing people as some sort of "punishment" and instantly characterize the average person suing a company as "entitlement" or "stupidity".

I saw this when Bethesda was sueing that guy over resell and it truly worries me in a way because it seems that a lot of people have swallowed the whole "bigger is better and more right" pathos that is so embraced in corporate environments today. I do not see how an average consumer can celebrate their rights being whittled down for a multinational business to make more money.

It just strikes me as utter lunacy, with the fact that it being legal being the defense mechanism that kicks in. Legal doesn't mean right or better. Legal just means someone paid someone a lot of money to write it in a big metaphorical book and that for you to be able to do anything with you have to pay a magic fairy to decode that big oversized magic book. Like religion, but with bigger buildings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeamScriptKiddies

pedro702

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
12,720
Trophies
2
Age
33
XP
8,700
Country
Portugal
srs why pay to rent roms for consoles you can get for free in seconds really, this guy will never become a millionaire renting roms of games that are tiny and old as hell.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N-3vv4kzdk