​

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:

• Interview with a Switch hacker
• Interview with Naomi Wu aka. SexyCyborg

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

 

[Foxi4]

I fully understand how the service works. It remains an illegal operation.

Again: Talk to a lawyer. One can not 'operate' in accordance with one portion of the US Code while ignoring others. Unless you demonstrate substantial improvement in your understanding of US law, I am not going to engage with you further.

You have an interesting method of arguing. Your first line of attack was accusing me of ignorance of the law, to which I responded by posting the relevant section of the code and proving that the service works in accordance to copyright law as it is practiced and understood. You then accused me of being ignorant of other sections of the law and acting in bad faith, to which I responded by explaining why the section you are quoting is irrelevant, quite extensively at that. You then told me that I should talk to a lawyer - that's fair, they spoke with lawyers prior to establishing their legally operating business venture. In fact, they consulted with a firm that are experts in copyright law, and ensured that they are not in violation of the law. So, it was enough for the copyright experts, but it's not enough for Mr.Bleh on the Internet. Okay. I will be more than happy to have a conversation with you provided you actually build an argument nested in evidence, so far all you've done is saying "ur wrong" without substantiating it in any way. It is I who won't participate in this discussion until you pour in at least a mild amount of effort to support your position since, as far as I can tell, you're far from an expert on the matter yourself and I'll happily take the opinion of actual lawyers over yours.

 

[blahblah]

You have an interesting method of arguing. Your first line of attack was accusing me of ignorance of the law, to which I responded by posting the relevant section of the code and proving that the service works in accordance to copyright law as it is practiced and understood. You then accused me of being ignorant of other sections of the law and acting in bad faith, to which I responded by explaining why the section you are quoting is irrelevant, quite extensively at that. You then told me that I should talk to a lawyer - that's fair, they spoke with lawyers prior to establishing their legally operating business venture. In fact, they consulted with a firm that are experts in copyright law, and ensured that they are not in violation of the law. So, it was enough for the copyright experts, but it's not enough for Mr.Bleh on the Internet. Okay. I will be more than happy to have a conversation with you provided you actually build an argument nested in evidence, so far all you've done is saying "ur wrong" without substantiating it in any way. It is I who won't participate in this discussion until you pour in at least a mild amount of effort to support your position since, as far as I can tell, you're far from an expert on the matter yourself and I'll happily take the opinion of actual lawyers over yours.

As has been said previously, you fail to understand that law does not exist in isolation. There is law specifically for the purpose of updating the Copyright Act. You fail to read and understand said law. Until you do so, I will not engage with you on any substantive level.

Actual lawyers familiar with copyright law understand how DMCA effectively shuts the door on this service.

 

[Foxi4]

As has been said previously, you fail to understand that law does not exist in isolation. There is law specifically for the purpose of updating the Copyright Act. You fail to read and understand said law. Until you do so, I will not engage with you on any substantive level.

I sure hope so, arguing with a wall is exhausting and not particularly fun.

I see that you've edited some of your posts to include a DRM removal deflection in order to support your DMCA point. Sadly, removing DRM is legal provided it is a requirement to utilise the copy of copyrighted work or it's for personal use. This was enshrined recently in Abbey House Media v. Apple Inc. and is perfectly compliant with DMCA. In fact, it is also legal to share DRM-stripping software, what's illegal is distributing DRM-stripped copies as it constitutes illegal modification of the source material, which is irrelevant as no copies are being distributed. Good effort, but you weren't stealthy enough.

 

[blahblah]

I sure hope so, arguing with a wall is exhausting and not particularly fun.

I see that you've edited some of your posts to include a DRM removal deflection in order to support your DMCA point. Sadly, removing DRM is legal provided it is a requirement to utilise the copy of copyrighted work or it's for personal use. This was enshrined recently in Abbey House Media v. Apple Inc. and is perfectly compliant with DMCA. In fact, it is also legal to share DRM-stripping software, what's illegal is distributing DRM-stripped copies as it constitutes illegal modification of the source material, which is irrelevant as no copies are being distributed. Good effort, but you weren't stealthy enough.

I added stuff to my earlier posts a minute or two after posting them, but I did not go back and add new stuff long after posting. Except this post, but I did so prior to your reply.

Defeating DRM is explicitly illegal in near all cases. Again. Talk to a lawyer. The case you cite could not possibly be more different from what is at hand here - that case is an anti-trust case that does not, from a brief glance at the docket, even concern DRM circumvention. Abbey House alleges anti-competitive actions - price fixing - by the major book publishers & Apple. I'm still reading the decision, but I don't see any mention of DRM in the actual court order. Which makes sense - the case isn't about DRM removal, DRM, copyright, or anything of the sort. It's about price fixing.

The situation here is that DRM was defeated so as to offer a service that - effectively - sends copy protected work to a users computer without authorization from the right holders. That act is illegal. You continue to be comically wrong about all you speak of.

Stop Googling for evidence in your favor & posting it without reading it. You only embarrass yourself.

Let's pretend (though, again, the case has nothing to do with DRM and does not contain what you say it contains) what you say is true, that it is legal to strip DRM in those two scenarios. It still wouldn't matter. Personal use does not mean 'I operate a business making use of this copy protected work'. There is no requirement that one be able to use a work intended for use on a Super Nintendo on an emulator. So, both 'reasons' are now dead.

Do you get it yet? You are wrong. Not a little bit wrong. Not somewhat wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. This situation - where a work that is protected by technological measures is copied - is specifically what the DMCA was drafted to prevent. There is a credible argument to be made as to if dumping a game cartridge qualifies as defeating a technological anti-piracy measure (IMO, it does in certain cases, depending on if anti-dump measures were implemented. Most Nintendo systems have some form of anti-dump measures.) The legality of emulation does not play a role here - the issue would be defeating technological measures designed to prevent emulators from running a title. Nintendo shipped various anti-piracy anti-emulation measures in NES, SNES, N64 titles.

Neither of those two things really matter, though. Those are harder arguments than the easy one - that transmitting a copy protected work without authorization violates DMCA. Digitizing a physical thing without authorization so you can copy that work into a users computer memory. No matter the verbiage or phrasing - it is illegal. That is why no major company offers a service like this.

UPDATE: I finished reading the court order. Not only did Abbey House Media *lose*, but there is no mention of DRM anywhere in the order. I honestly can't believe that you cited a court ruling in your favor without actually reading it.

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

I sure hope so, arguing with a wall is exhausting and not particularly fun.

I see that you've edited some of your posts to include a DRM removal deflection in order to support your DMCA point. Sadly, removing DRM is legal provided it is a requirement to utilise the copy of copyrighted work or it's for personal use. This was enshrined recently in Abbey House Media v. Apple Inc. and is perfectly compliant with DMCA. In fact, it is also legal to share DRM-stripping software, what's illegal is distributing DRM-stripped copies as it constitutes illegal modification of the source material, which is irrelevant as no copies are being distributed. Good effort, but you weren't stealthy enough.

Quoting your post again to let you know that I edited my reply to you to contain new stuff.

 

[Foxi4]

I added stuff to my earlier posts a minute or two after posting them, but I did not go back and add new stuff long after posting. Except this post, but I did so prior to your reply.

Defeating DRM is explicitly illegal in near all cases. Again. Talk to a lawyer. The case you cite could not possibly be more different from what is at hand here - that case is an anti-trust case that does not, from a brief glance at the docket, even concern DRM circumvention. Abbey House alleges anti-competitive actions - price fixing - by the major book publishers & Apple. I'm still reading the decision, but I don't see any mention of DRM in the actual court order. Which makes sense - the case isn't about DRM removal, DRM, copyright, or anything of the sort. It's about price fixing.

The situation here is that DRM was defeated so as to offer a service that - effectively - sends copy protected work to a users computer without authorization from the right holders. That act is illegal. You continue to be comically wrong about all you speak of.

Stop Googling for evidence in your favor & posting it without reading it. You only embarrass yourself.

Let's pretend (though, again, the case has nothing to do with DRM and does not contain what you say it contains) what you say is true, that it is legal to strip DRM in those two scenarios. It still wouldn't matter. Personal use does not mean 'I operate a business making use of this copy protected work'. There is no requirement that one be able to use a work intended for use on a Super Nintendo on an emulator. So, both 'reasons' are now dead.

Do you get it yet? You are wrong. Not a little bit wrong. Not somewhat wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. This situation - where a work that is protected by technological measures is copied - is specifically what the DMCA was drafted to prevent. There is a credible argument to be made as to if dumping a game cartridge qualifies as defeating a technological anti-piracy measure (IMO, it does in certain cases, depending on if anti-dump measures were implemented. Most Nintendo systems have some form of anti-dump measures.) The legality of emulation does not play a role here - the issue would be defeating technological measures designed to prevent emulators from running a title. Nintendo shipped various anti-piracy anti-emulation measures in NES, SNES, N64 titles.

Neither of those two things really matter, though. Those are harder arguments than the easy one - that transmitting a copy protected work without authorization violates DMCA. Digitizing a physical thing without authorization so you can copy that work into a users computer memory. No matter the verbiage or phrasing - it is illegal. That is why no major company offers a service like this.

UPDATE: I finished reading the court order. Not only did Abbey House Media *lose*, but there is no mention of DRM anywhere in the order. I honestly can't believe that you cited a court ruling in your favor without actually reading it.

Quoting your post again to let you know that I edited my reply to you to contain new stuff.

You're not reading the file very closely then. The anti-trust case concerned Abbey House v. various publishers including Apple, Penguin Books, HarperCollins etc., one of the claims against Abbey House was copyright violation by suggesting customers switch to Calibre, an alternative eBooks manager, which will allow them to circumvent the DRM wrapper and move their eBooks to new devices after Abbey closes. This claim was dismissed as this use was found non-infringing upon 17 U.S.C. § 1201. Here's the granted motion to dismiss:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2014cv02000/425052/82

That's the part of the lawsuit that pertains to the subject, the final outcome is irrelevant as we're not discussing an anti-trust issue, we're discussing digital rights. Next time read the actual documentation instead of looking foolish.

I will walk you very slowly through this decision to help you understand why the judge dismissed the copyright violation charge. Abbey House was going out of business and this meant that users who have purchased licenses for eBooks from them would lose the ability to transfer their books onto new devices following the company's closure due to the embedded DRM. As a solution to this issue Abbey House provided information on how users can circumvent the DRM or strip it entirely from their books in order to allow their continued use. This was found to be a perfectly acceptable use of DRM stripping software and the charge was dismissed. Users were entitled to the books they purchased regardless of Abbey's closure.

You also once again fail to understand how this system works, and I'm done explaining the technical aspects of how the website works, piece why your argument doesn't work yourself.

 

[blahblah]

You're not reading the file very closely then. The anti-trust case concerned Abbey House v. various publishers including Apple, Penguin Books, HarperCollins etc., one of the claims against Abbey House was copyright violation by suggesting customers switch to Calibre, an alternative eBooks manager, which will allow them to circumvent the DRM wrapper and move their eBooks to new devices after Abbey closes. This claim was dismissed as this use was found non-infringing upon 17 U.S.C. § 1201. Here's the granted motion to dismiss:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2014cv02000/425052/82

That's the part of the lawsuit that pertains to the subject, the final outcome is irrelevant as we're not discussing an anti-trust issue, we're discussing digital rights. Next time read the actual documentation instead of looking foolish.

You also once again fail to understand how this system works, and I'm done explaining the technical aspects of how the website works, piece why your argument doesn't work yourself.

My apologies, I thought too much of you. I assumed you knew that a final ruling on the case was what mattered here. I regret the error.

So your argument is that as a claim was dismissed, that means......anything? I'm reading the reason for the dismissal and it is, effectively 'plaintiffs failed to adequately define an illegal act', which is code for 'your filing was crap'. Encouraging users to circumvent THE COMPANIES OWN DRM is materially different, as are many other aspects of the case. It should also go without saying that the creator of a DRM scheme has a legal right to decide how it works, if it exists. Said company has the rights to update their application to remove the DRM entirely - it would violate contracts that the company has with book publishers, but the change itself would not be illegal. It would be a civil matter.

Law is not computer code. Law can be bent to allow for obviously good uses like 'we went out of business, we give you permission to rip our DRM (even if the publishers won't like it) without allowing The Rental Bay.

Moreover, people fail to bring proper lawsuits all the time. Something being thrown out in a specific case does not mean anything - what you need is a final ruling on a case stating that the act itself is legal, not that the claim was improper. Preferably in big boy US federal criminal court.

Try again, this time after talking to a lawyer. Please, talk to a lawyer.

 

[Foxi4]

My apologies, I thought too much of you. I assumed you knew that a final ruling on the case was what mattered here. I regret the error.

So your argument is that as a claim was dismissed, that means......anything? I'm reading the reason for the dismissal and it is, effectively 'plaintiffs failed to adequately define an illegal act', which is code for 'your filing was crap'.

People fail to bring proper lawsuits all the time. Something being thrown out in a specific case does not mean anything - what you need is a final ruling on a case stating that the act itself is legal, not that the claim was improper.

The civil arena is the wrong one for your purposes, and a claim being rejected is not president. Try again, this time after talking to a lawyer. Please, talk to a lawyer.

>"I can't see DRM here"
>"Here it is"
>"I don't like your example"

You're moving goal posts and I don't have the time or obligation to chase you across the field. Read 17 U.S.C. § 1201, it lists the exceptions for the normally universal prohibition on DRM removal.

 

[blahblah]

>"I can't see DRM here"
>"Here it is"
>"I don't like your example"

You're moving goal posts and I don't have the time or obligation to chase you across the field. Read 17 U.S.C. § 1201, it lists the exceptions for the normally universal prohibition on DRM removal.

You don't understand law, so you think that it is computer code. It should go without saying that a company encouraging customers of said companies defunct store to remove DRM is not the same as an unrelated third party bypassing DRM for an illegal rental scheme.

The key difference is that the company in question created and implemented the DRM scheme, so they have a legal right to remove it if they so choose. Deferring to end users is not materially different than the company removing the scheme with an app update. Just as how it is not legal for you to break into my house but it is legal for me to do so if i lose my keys or what-have-you. The company would have civil liabilities with regards to their contracts with publishers dictating that a DRM scheme must be in place to protect the publisher's content, but that's a civil matter - not a criminal one.

People operating in good faith know the difference between the circumstances of the case you cite and what we are arguing about. You are not operating in good faith, so you pretend not to.

Not for nothing, but that order would likely not survive appeal. But that's not terribly important. Talk to a lawyer.

 

[Foxi4]

You don't understand law, so you think that it is computer code. It should go without saying that a company encouraging customers of said companies defunct store to remove DRM is not the same as an unrelated third party bypassing DRM for an illegal rental scheme.

The key difference is that the company in question created and implemented the DRM scheme, so they have a legal right to remove it if they so choose. Deferring to end users is not materially different than the company removing the scheme with an app update. Just as how it is not legal for you to break into my house but it is legal for me to do so if i lose my keys or what-have-you.

People operating in good faith know the difference between the circumstances of the case you cite and what we are arguing about. You are not operating in good faith, so you pretend not to.

Not for nothing, but that order would likely not survive appeal. But that's not terribly important. Talk to a lawyer.

Perhaps you should actually read the document provided before commenting on it, maybe then you'd understand why Abbey filed a motion to dismiss and why it was an issue in the first place. As I've previously stated, we're done here. Your statements are conclusory, conclusions are not arguments. I'm also still not clear why we're arguing about the DMCA, or even about American copyright law - as you may or may not know, America is not the center of the universe, hence *your mileage may vary*.

 

[blahblah]

Perhaps you should actually read the document provided before commenting on it, maybe then you'd understand why Abbey filed a motion to dismiss and why it was an issue in the first place. As I've previously stated, we're done here. Your statements are conclusory, conclusions are not arguments.

I've read it. Sorry if you don't like my response. Unlike your posts, mine are based in fact and actual legal understanding. I'm fairly sure any objective observer who has the slightest familiarity with US law would say that I'm the one winning here.

Your citations are ridiculous to the point of outright comedy. You are wholly incapable of finding any instance where a federal criminal court has allowed for anything *close* to what is occuring with ConsoleClassiX. There is a reason for that, and it's not your Google skills.

 

[Foxi4]

I've read it. Sorry if you don't like my response. Unlike your posts, mine are based in fact and actual legal understanding. I'm fairly sure any objective observer who has the slightest familiarity with US law would say that I'm the one winning here.

Your citations are ridiculous to the point of outright comedy. You are wholly incapable of finding any instance where a federal criminal court has allowed for anything *close* to what is occuring with ConsoleClassiX. There is a reason for that, and it's not your Google skills.

I thought you were done commenting until I educate myself? I'll throw you a bone - if I were to make an argument that this is an illegal service, I certainly wouldn't attack from the DRM angle as you'd have to prove that DRM is being circumvented by modifying the software when you don't know if that's even the case - the emulator might just account for that and the 1:1 image of the program doesn't know any better. I would sooner attack from the exclusive rights to performance angle as, again, the site doesn't *distribute* copies, it *performs* them on their own server, so to speak. To be more clear, I can't buy a DVD and a projector, aim it at a wall, play the film and charge for entry - that counts as a performance of a work and I'm not a cinema, I have no express consent of the copyright holder. That would be a more sound argument, but that's not the argument you're making.

 

[blahblah]

I thought you were done commenting until I educate myself? I'll throw you a bone - if I were to make an argument that this is an illegal service, I certainly wouldn't attack from the DRM angle as you'd have to prove that DRM is being circumvented by modifying the software when you don't know if that's even the case - the emulator might just account for that and the 1:1 image of the program doesn't know any better. I would sooner attack from the exclusive rights to performance angle as, again, the site doesn't *distribute* copies, it *performs* them on their own server, so to speak. To be more clear, I can't buy a DVD and a projector, aim it at a wall, play the film and charge for entry - that counts as a performance of a work and I'm not a cinema, I have no express consent of the copyright holder. That would be a more sound argument, but that's not the argument you're making.

Yeah, all of that is wrong. Talk to a lawyer. The public performance argument is harder than ‘this is plainly in violation of both the letter and the intent of DMCA.’

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, all of that is wrong. Talk to a later.

Here's the relevant case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc.

WTV did effectively the same thing, except with DVD's, which the court found to be a copyright infringement in the form of a public performance. Stop being a smarty-pants, I'm helping you.

 

[blahblah]

Here's the relevant case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc.

WTV did effectively the same thing, except with DVD's, which the court found to be a copyright infringement in the form of a public performance. Stop being a smarty-pants, I'm helping you.

Right of first sale effectively kills that. Would be reversed on appeal. And it’s a harder argument to make. It’s doable, just not worth the effort.

First sale protects Redbox and the like. DMCA kills online streaming of DVDs.

 

[Foxi4]

Right of first sale effectively kills that. Would be reversed on appeal. And it’s a harder argument to make. It’s doable, just not worth the effort.

Can you elaborate?

EDIT: Nevermind.

 

[blahblah]

Can you elaborate?

Online streaming of DVDs is a DMCA and public performance issue, yes. It’s a harder argument to make but it is doable. I prefer the DMCA route - find that in their process that’s is clearly illegal and litigate that. Public performance has many tests.

Right of first sale protects the actual rental of a disc to a customer.

 

[Foxi4]

Online streaming of DVDs is a DMCA and public performance issue, yes. It’s a harder argument to make but it is doable. I prefer the DMCA route - find that in their process that’s is clearly illegal and litigate that. Public performance has many tests.

Right of first sale protects the actual rental of a disc to a customer.

That's a fair counter. Here's my question, just a hypothetical. Let's say that I have an NES, and an original cartridge. I capture the footage and I send signals to controller ports from a server. Now, let's say that I give remote access to this setup to a third-party, and only one player can access it at a time. Would you consider that to be a violation? I'm not breaking any DRM, I am not making a copy, I am merely allowing a third-party to utilise my original system and original game by sending a video feed, the third-party controls the controller via the Internet. Would that be different than inviting a guest to my house and playing the game? Does the layer of the Internet add a legal issue to the picture? Genuinely curious, this became interesting all of a sudden.

 

[blahblah]

That's a fair counter. Here's my question, just a hypothetical. Let's say that I have an NES, and an original cartridge. I capture the footage and I send signals to controller ports from a server. Now, let's say that I give remote access to this setup to a third-party, and only one player can access it at a time. Would you consider that to be a violation? I'm not breaking any DRM, I am not making a copy, I am merely allowing a third-party to utilise my original system and original game by sending a video feed, the third-party controls the controller via the Internet. Would that be different than inviting a guest to my house and playing the game? Does the layer of the Internet add a legal issue to the picture? Genuinely curious, this became interesting all of a sudden.

That appears to be DMCA compliant at a surface level and would be best served by a public performance argument.

 

[Foxi4]

That appears to be DMCA compliant at a surface level and would be best served by a public performance argument.

I figured that would be the case. Thank you for indulging my curiosity.

 

[blahblah]

I figured that would be the case. Thank you for indulging my curiosity.

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.