Rom links on nesdev?

by Dwedit on 2008-05-30 (#33799)

In response to a few posts that started here:

I distinctly remember the thread that linked to a downloadable MMC3 hack of Japanese Contra. So much for no romz?

by WedNESday on 2008-05-30 (#33805)

*FREE ROMZ LEET ROMZ GET THEM HERE!!! PORN ROMZ + 1000000000 PSX ROMZ!*

by Bregalad on 2008-05-30 (#33806)

Oh no you just liked to the worst site of the whole internet I know of.

by WedNESday on 2008-05-30 (#33807)

Bregalad wrote:
Oh no you just liked to the worst site of the whole internet I know of.

PERVERT! You clicked the link.

No, that site is the funniest ever. Why don't you like it?

by tepples on 2008-05-30 (#33808)

Bregalad wrote:
Oh no you just liked to the worst site of the whole internet I know of.

Worse even than Encyclopedia Dramatica or Wikichan?

by peppers on 2008-05-30 (#33809)

Dwedit wrote:
I distinctly remember the thread that linked to a downloadable MMC3 hack of Japanese Contra. So much for no romz?

That link was to a patch that converts the ROM to MMC3 wasn’t it?

by tepples on 2008-05-30 (#33813)

A lot of binary difference formats don't efficiently represent moving things around in a ROM except by literally representing the information that was copied from another part of the ROM. Especially in the case of a mapper hack, a patch might move so much data within the ROM that a substantial portion of the ROM can be reconstructed from the patch alone.

by Bregalad on 2008-05-30 (#33815)

WedNESday wrote:
PERVERT! You clicked the link.

No, that site is the funniest ever. Why don't you like it?

No I just saw it on my status bar. And that site isn't fun at all, it's just a lame attempt to be a fun parody of wikipedia which is boring, confusing and pitfull. As a plus, it gives spoilers on purpose, which is very stupid as it is not fun at all and ruins one's experience when involved with an imaginary story. Anyone would have better surf on the real wikipedia instead of this crap that isn't fun at all.

by Memblers on 2008-05-30 (#33818)

About ROM links, I remember a big thread about that a long time ago. I always figured posting a ROM link is about the same as posting google search of just the filename, but maybe 15 seconds faster for the viewer. But common sense isn't the law. It's a good thing that we have/had good moderator(s).

by Nessie on 2008-05-30 (#33820)

I just can't understand how a simple link could possibly be illegal... wouldn't that make Google's business criminal?
Who would be responsible for the link? The poster, the board admin, the server admin or the network admin? Perhaps the poster's ISP since they're aiding his criminal activities?

by peppers on 2008-05-30 (#33822)

last year the US courts ruled sites can be held responsible for the things there users post.........

by tepples on 2008-05-30 (#33823)

Nessie wrote:
I just can't understand how a simple link could possibly be illegal... wouldn't that make Google's business criminal?

Google's links are found by an automated process. Google has a process to remove links to obvious infringements from the index, which complies with the DMCA safe harbor provisions and foreign counterparts. Links posted on a forum, on the other hand, are not found by an automated process.

Quote:
Who would be responsible for the link? The poster, the board admin, the server admin or the network admin? Perhaps the poster's ISP since they're aiding his criminal activities?

The poster for sure, and possibly anybody who doesn't do a DMCA takedown upon notice.

I'm getting ready to split ROM link discussion into a separate topic.

by Nessie on 2008-05-31 (#33826)

But it's only a url - a series of ascii characters to locate a resource on the Internet. It's ridiculous, it's like being convicted for handing out the phone number to a drug dealer without ever seeing drugs yourself... thank God I live in Sweden

by Celius on 2008-05-31 (#33832)

Nessie wrote:
thank God I live in Sweden

Thank God for Sweden... And the pirate bay .