Hi there.

I’m a bit cross about allowing or not to allow liking to the website archives.
For the time being, and while we discuss about it among the mods, I’d like to ask you to refrain from posting any link to said archive, I’ll restore to posts containing said links if we decide to allow that.

Thank you for your understanding.

From what I see in the archive link I posted, it only contains patches, not playable games, neither original nor patched. You need a copy of the game already to make any use of it.

That’s correct. The entire archive is only about 12GB; it couldn’t possibly contain the full games.

You don’t need to have the full game to be considered as piracy. Anything allowing to break a DRM could be considered as such.

The site hosts files in the IPS format which only contain 100% original code and don’t in any circumstances I’m aware of break DRM. These old games are comparatively small and written in assembly language so these are small files that get merged with a text editor that add additional code to otherwise existing ROM files, which may or may not be illegally obtained.

Warning US only: They are often said to be covered under fair use but I am not certain that is true, I would assert they would be fully copyright to the author of the IPS file and whatever license they released their code under. The fact that their code isn’t complete isn’t relevant and it wouldn’t even be considered a commentary or derivative (both types of either fair use or granted license) as none of the original content is present. An example I can think of related to this in market would be “Riff Trax” which are audio tracks released by several comedians who used to perform on Mystery Science Theater 3000. They give a full commentary on a movie but contain none of the original material, it is on you to press play at a specific time during the movie so the commentary track aligns with the film. There are no references I can find in the case law to anything like “rom hacks” for what its worth so I would say this is extremely low risk in my professional opinion, but I do not want to dox myself and present credentials so ymmv.

Thank you for taking the time to share your expertise.
In the EU, things are a bit different. US Fair Use is quite open ended, with a lot of room for interpretation. The EU copyright laws, the list of exclusions is explicitly lister in Information Society Directive Article 5.
In my opinion this could fall into either art. 5.3(d), art. 5.3(i), or art. 5.3(k), but I’m no copyright law specialist. I do have one among my friends, but she kinda got a child last week, I’m not gonna bother her for that 😅.

I read through the list, there is no way that IPS patches in this context are a violation. None of the original material is used or even referenced in the IPS patches, thus they can not belong ROM files copyright holder. They are collections of assembly code without any of the original material contained within.

First, please take into consideration that lemmy.world website and organisation is bound to EU laws (as stated in the TOS). As such, in the current case the EU copyright laws, that are as previously stated, far more restrictive than the US ones.

As you stated, the objective of ROM patches is to modify copyrighted material. One of the right protected by copyright in the EU is the right to modify a software.

By default, if no licence is given, software is considered as being under the most restrictive licence available (even if the source code is freely available), which means, in this case, an “all rights reserved” licence, which prohibit software modification.

In the EU, third party patches are considered as derivative works, and requires an explicit authorisation from the copyright holder to be published and used on copyrighted material. Some exceptions exists, as previously stated, but applying them here would be quite far fetched.

For now, and while I keep researching on the application of EU copyright laws to try to find a flaw that would allow me to authorize those links, I’ll have to keep those links removed.

The comments would be restored if the link are removed by the comment authors.

ok, thanks but I am literally an expert in global copyright and know you are being overly cautious and risk averse for no reason. Have fun with I was just trying to be informative.