Poll of the Day > Nintendo wins $12m lawsuit against ROM-hosting sites, LoveRETRO and LoveROMS.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/11/13/nintendo-rom-site-lawsuit-results-in-12-million-judgement

Nintendo has been awarded $12,230,000 by an Arizona judge following its lawsuit against two ROM hosting sites.

Back in July, Nintendo issued lawsuits to LoveRETRO and LoveROMS, both run by the same married couple, Jacob and Cristian Mathias. The couple has since taken down both sites, and entered settlement negotiations with Nintendo to avoid a legal battle.

TorrentFreak now reports that the two sides have agreed to a consent judgment. Unsigned judgment documents read: Plaintiff is hereby awarded judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,230,000.

The couple has apparently also agreed to a permanent injunction, preventing them from breaching Nintendo copyright again, handing over ownership of both sites to the developer, and handing over all Nintendo games and emulators.

The high value of the judgment may be intended as a deterrent to other ROM hosting sites. Previous settlements of this kind have resulted in behind-closed-doors settlements involving lower payouts, although it's by no means clear if that's true in this case.

Nintendo is famously protective of its copyright, and won a legal battle against an unlicensed Mario Kart tour company operating in Tokyo earlier this year.

I wish my SO was into making money off ROM sites it would be so ROMantic
---

Lol going after ROM sites. They should be going after sites that have newer games.
---

Now even more people are just going to pirate their entire libraries and softmod/chip their consoles out of spite.
---

It fucks me right the heck off that Nintendo goes after these sites yet they offer up the bare minimum shitty services for obtaining their older games digitally.

I'm not going to dish out $60 just to get a physical copy of some obscure SNES game because Nintendo is either too dumb or lazy to provide their own copy for $8 on Switch.

I've probably purchased around $300-$400 of digital games from older systems through Nintendo, I support them and enjoy playing games on a legitimate platform and means, but come on.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

It fucks me right the heck off that Nintendo goes after these sites yet they offer up the bare minimum shitty services for obtaining their older games digitally.

I'm not going to dish out $60 just to get a physical copy of some obscure SNES game because Nintendo is either too dumb or lazy to provide their own copy for $8 on Switch.

I've probably purchased around $300-$400 of digital games from older systems through Nintendo, I support them and enjoy playing games on a legitimate platform and means, but come on.

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound) I won't pirate it either though. They need to make their older system digital games more reasonable prices.
---

I mean, it's Nintendo's property so I get the lawsuit to make the ROM sites stop but a $12 million settlement against a married couple from Arizona? Nintendo must feel like a real tough guy now.
---

Revelation34 posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

It fucks me right the heck off that Nintendo goes after these sites yet they offer up the bare minimum shitty services for obtaining their older games digitally.

I'm not going to dish out $60 just to get a physical copy of some obscure SNES game because Nintendo is either too dumb or lazy to provide their own copy for $8 on Switch.

I've probably purchased around $300-$400 of digital games from older systems through Nintendo, I support them and enjoy playing games on a legitimate platform and means, but come on.

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound) I won't pirate it either though. They need to make their older system digital games more reasonable prices.

no, they don't.

you either need to pay the $10, or not get the game.

they can charge whatever the hell they want. its up to people to decide if they'll buy it

Was the couple even charging? Seems absurd unless they were making money. (Then again, I remember some music cases being crazy.)
---

Zeus posted...

Was the couple even charging? Seems absurd unless they were making money. (Then again, I remember some music cases being crazy.)

Advertisement is an income they gained by offering a product they did not have the rights too.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound)

Why not? Is a quality 30-hour RPG not worth $10?

Fam_Fam posted...

no, they don't.

you either need to pay the $10, or not get the game.

they can charge whatever the hell they want. its up to people to decide if they'll buy it

No they do.

_AdjI_ posted...

Why not? Is a quality 30-hour RPG not worth $10?

I don't care how good the game is.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound) I won't pirate it either though. They need to make their older system digital games more reasonable prices.

I don't know, would you prefer to pay... hang on let me just check eBay... around $200 for Earthbound?

And that's just the cartridge. If you want it complete in box, then I hope you have $680 lying around.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I don't care how good the game is.

That's kind of a stupid thing to not care about when buying games.

We can rail against this all we want but remember this we dont have the right to download roms.
---

I'm with Rev on this one. The effort it takes to upload the entire first party SNES library is next to none. SNES games should be $5. They're making virtually 100% profit off of it in the long run. Yeah, you pay the workers a good what, month's worth of salary across a dozen people or so and then for the next six to eight years, you just rake in the money from having the games on there for a cheap price.
---

Thankfully, Nintendo is such a backwards, half-assed company run by nitwits that they couldn't even go after a ROM site that people have actually heard of.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

I'm with Rev on this one. The effort it takes to upload the entire first party SNES library is next to none. SNES games should be $5. They're making virtually 100% profit off of it in the long run. Yeah, you pay the workers a good what, month's worth of salary across a dozen people or so and then for the next six to eight years, you just rake in the money from having the games on there for a cheap price.

Yeah, because all it takes is just uploading games onto a server. They don't have to do QA to make sure the games are emulated properly or anything. They certainly don't have to modify the emulation code to fix emulation errors. There definitely isn't anything they have to do from a marketing perspective to display the games in the VC eShop. It's totally just as simple as sticking a ROM on a server and putting a price on it.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Lol going after ROM sites. They should be going after sites that have newer games.

They aren't trying to get people to pay for a subscription service to play the newer games.

Also, Nintendo straight refuses to sell these retro games now, they only want to have them accessible though their subscription service. And they refuse to release most of them even on their subscription service. Even if you pay the subscription service, it comes with crazy DRM.

Not to mention, the games are so old, they're almost valueless in the the first place (although Nintendo has long been upcharging for very old games even when they were selling them, and are also famous for refusing to lower prices even as games age).
---

TigerTycoon posted...

Not to mention, the games are so old, they're almost valueless in the the first place.

You heard it hear first, retro game collectors: old games are almost valueless. Better just fucking drop your entire now worthless collections in a fucking donation bin.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound) I won't pirate it either though. They need to make their older system digital games more reasonable prices.

That's nice, other people certainly are though otherwise they would have lowered the price 10 years ago when they started doing that.

If you want to complain about anybody, complain about the fans who buy the games at that price. Nintendo is just charging what the fans are willing to pay.
---

dainkinkaide posted...

TigerTycoon posted...

Not to mention, the games are so old, they're almost valueless in the the first place.

You heard it hear first, retro game collectors: old games are almost valueless. Better just fucking drop your entire now worthless collections in a fucking donation bin.

Get over yourself, this topic is about the ROM data, not physical cartridges.
---

Gottem! Nintendo showing everyone who's boss around here. Only stupids would call their gaming site Love. What morons.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

I'm with Rev on this one. The effort it takes to upload the entire first party SNES library is next to none. SNES games should be $5. They're making virtually 100% profit off of it in the long run. Yeah, you pay the workers a good what, month's worth of salary across a dozen people or so and then for the next six to eight years, you just rake in the money from having the games on there for a cheap price.

And that is their right, as the owners of the intellectual property. Nobody is entitled to play Earthbound for any less than Nintendo wants to charge for it, because Nintendo is the only party that gets to decide how Earthbound is distributed.

Could they charge less? Absolutely. Should they? That's 100% their choice. Earthbound is easily worth $10, no matter how much it costs to distribute it or whether or not they've already recovered the development costs (though given that it kinda flopped initially, I'm not actually sure if they have). Ergo, $10 is not an unreasonable price.

TigerTycoon posted...

Also, Nintendo straight refuses to sell these retro games now, they only want to have them accessible though their subscription service.

That's purely for NES games, and even then, I don't think that's so much a matter of wanting to sell them through their subscription service as it is them adding an incentive to the service. The service's primary function is online play. Everything else is just a bonus (some of which, like save backups, should be available without it, but that's another story).

_AdjI_ posted...

That's purely for NES games, and even then, I don't think that's so much a matter of wanting to sell them through their subscription service as it is them adding an incentive to the service. The service's primary function is online play. Everything else is just a bonus (some of which, like save backups, should be available without it, but that's another story).

Nintendo has already said in response to if they're bringing the Virtual Console back that they are not.

They are from now on going to "offer" the games that were previously on the Virtual Console, on the subscription service.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

Revelation34 posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

It fucks me right the heck off that Nintendo goes after these sites yet they offer up the bare minimum shitty services for obtaining their older games digitally.

I'm not going to dish out $60 just to get a physical copy of some obscure SNES game because Nintendo is either too dumb or lazy to provide their own copy for $8 on Switch.

I've probably purchased around $300-$400 of digital games from older systems through Nintendo, I support them and enjoy playing games on a legitimate platform and means, but come on.

I'm not going to pay $10 for a game from 1995. (Earthbound) I won't pirate it either though. They need to make their older system digital games more reasonable prices.

no, they don't.

you either need to pay the $10, or not get the game.

they can charge whatever the hell they want. its up to people to decide if they'll buy it

That's stupid. Do something like Steam sales and reasonable pricing. Way more people will buy their shit.
---

I wouldn't give them anything and take prison time.

I mean most just can't reach into their pockets and whip out 12m dollars.
---

dainkinkaide posted...

I don't know, would you prefer to pay... hang on let me just check eBay... around $200 for Earthbound?

And that's just the cartridge. If you want it complete in box, then I hope you have $680 lying around.

That's for physical collection and can't be compared to a digital item.

_AdjI_ posted...

That's kind of a stupid thing to not care about when buying games.

I would rather pirate it if I was going to play it for that price.

Dikitain posted...

That's nice, other people certainly are though otherwise they would have lowered the price 10 years ago when they started doing that.

If you want to complain about anybody, complain about the fans who buy the games at that price. Nintendo is just charging what the fans are willing to pay.

That would be a valid argument if the game wasn't always $10.
---

Oops_All_Berrys posted...

I wish my SO was into making money off ROM sites it would be so ROMantic

We could turn your ROMance into the world's greatest ROM-COM.
---

Zeus posted...

Was the couple even charging? Seems absurd unless they were making money. (Then again, I remember some music cases being crazy.)

I think I heard that they were on nintendolife. If so, those two are morons.

I understand why nintendo is doing what they're doing. Its their right to do it.

But I think perhaps games made by defunct companies that nobody has picked up after a certain amount of years, can go into public domain.

Like music and books do looong after the original owners died. (No one sane is gonna throw a fit and sue for downloading Twinkle Twinkle Little Star for a kindergarten class right?)

That way future generations can play games they might not have a chance to play otherwise and companies that are still kicking around won't hafta worry about piracy as much.

I think that would be an excellent compromise.
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I think I heard that they were on nintendolife. If so, those two are morons.

I understand why nintendo is doing what they're doing. Its their right to do it.

But I think perhaps games made by defunct companies that nobody has picked up after a certain amount of years, can go into public domain.

Like music and books do looong after the original owners died. (No one sane is gonna throw a fit and sue for downloading Twinkle Twinkle Little Star for a kindergarten class right?)

That way future generations can play games they might not have a chance to play otherwise and companies that are still kicking around won't hafta worry about piracy as much.

I think that would be an excellent compromise.

Then there's the case of nobody knowing who owns the rights to certain games so it gets stuck in copyright hell.
---

In a magical land of bubbles and magic where it was completely impossible to download/pirate content, I wonder if copyright laws would be more reasonable, because people would actually fight to change them rather than just bypassing them. Then we wouldn't be in this situation where the only choices are "break the law" vs "get nothing" (the later obviously not for everything since there are legal ways to get SOME of the games, just not all of them).

ShadosAtPhoenix posted...

In a magical land of bubbles and magic where it was completely impossible to download/pirate content, I wonder if copyright laws would be more reasonable, because people would actually fight to change them rather than just bypassing them. Then we wouldn't be in this situation where the only choices are "break the law" vs "get nothing" (the later obviously not for everything since there are legal ways to get SOME of the games, just not all of them).

Are we heading to the cave of monsters?
---

ShadosAtPhoenix posted...

In a magical land of bubbles and magic where it was completely impossible to download/pirate content, I wonder if copyright laws would be more reasonable, because people would actually fight to change them rather than just bypassing them. Then we wouldn't be in this situation where the only choices are "break the law" vs "get nothing" (the later obviously not for everything since there are legal ways to get SOME of the games, just not all of them).

Some people just wouldn't do anything. A lot of people wouldn't just buy something just because piracy is 100% impossible.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

Get over yourself, this topic is about the ROM data, not physical cartridges.

Given that there is a not insignificant demand for the ROM data, that must mean that the ROM data has a not insignificant value.

In fact, one could argue that the (technically illegal) availability of free ROM data for classic games created much of the market Nintendo hopes to capitalize on with the Switch Online service and the one they have already capitalized on with the NES Classic, SNES Classic, and Virtual Console.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

That's purely for NES games, and even then, I don't think that's so much a matter of wanting to sell them through their subscription service as it is them adding an incentive to the service. The service's primary function is online play. Everything else is just a bonus (some of which, like save backups, should be available without it, but that's another story).

Nintendo has already said in response to if they're bringing the Virtual Console back that they are not.

They are from now on going to "offer" the games that were previously on the Virtual Console, on the subscription service.

I know they aren't planning on another VC, but do you have a source for them saying that Nintendo Online's game part is meant to replace it? My understanding is that it's just NES games, and even then, it's going to be an even slower drip-feed of games than we're used to with prior VC's.

Revelation34 posted...

I would rather pirate it if I was going to play it for that price.

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

But I think perhaps games made by defunct companies that nobody has picked up after a certain amount of years, can go into public domain.

I expect that will eventually happen, but I believe the standard is 75 years for music to go public domain. Games just haven't been around for long enough for that to kick in.

_AdjI_ posted...

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

It isn't when it's that old.
---

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

It isn't when it's that old.

Does being old make it less enjoyable? Or shorter? Or legitimately available elsewhere for a lower price?

_AdjI_ posted...

Does being old make it less enjoyable? Or shorter? Or legitimately available elsewhere for a lower price?

Nope. It should be closer to $5 though.
---

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Does being old make it less enjoyable? Or shorter? Or legitimately available elsewhere for a lower price?

Nope.

Then why should being older reduce its value below $10?

_AdjI_ posted...

Then why should being older reduce its value below $10?

Cause it's still old. NES games are slightly more reasonably priced.
---

Revelation34 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

It isn't when it's that old.

On release, Earthbound cost $69.99. Adjusting for inflation, that would be around $116.15 in 2018 dollars.

You don't think it's even worth around 8.6% of its original price, 23 years after its original release date?

To put that in perspective, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was first available in a home video release in 1994 for $26.99. That would be about $46 in 2018 dollars. You can buy it digitally on Amazon Prime Video for $14.99. That's around 33% of its original price, 24 years after its original release date.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Cause it's still old.

Being old should reduce its value below $10 because it's old. Truly, future logicians shall look back upon your posts here as the epitome of our era's intellectual accomplishment.

dainkinkaide posted...

You don't think it's even worth around 8.6% of its original price, 23 years after its original release date?

Nope and I actually love Earthbound. Not as good as other SNES RPGs but definitely one of the top.

_AdjI_ posted...

Being old should reduce its value below $10 because it's old. Truly, future logicians shall look back upon your posts here as the epitome of our era's intellectual accomplishment.

It's also digital.
---

Ah, the stupid defences come out.

But, but...they shouldn't be allowed to charge what they want for their property.

But, but...the games are old

Personally, i couldn't give a fuck if people decide to download roms, just don't pretend it's for any other reason than you being cheap. You have no right to play any particular game, for only a price that you personally deem worthy. Stop acting so entitled and just say "i know it's illegal and i don't care because I'm too cheap to pay whatever the asking price is"
---

Revelation34 posted...

It's also digital.

You should probably have tried that argument before attempting to use transparently circular logic, but it's still not particularly valid unless you can also explain how being digital reduces its value below $10.

Darth_CiD posted...

Ah, the stupid defences come out.

But, but...they shouldn't be allowed to charge what they want for their property.

But, but...the games are old

Personally, i couldn't give a fuck if people decide to download roms, just don't pretend it's for any other reason than you being cheap. You have no right to play any particular game, for only a price that you personally deem worthy. Stop acting so entitled and just say "i know it's illegal and i don't care because I'm too cheap to pay whatever the asking price is"

"I won't pirate it either though. "

_AdjI_ posted...

You should probably have tried that argument before attempting to use transparently circular logic, but it's still not particularly valid unless you can also explain how being digital reduces its value below $10.

Physical items are always better.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

TigerTycoon posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

That's purely for NES games, and even then, I don't think that's so much a matter of wanting to sell them through their subscription service as it is them adding an incentive to the service. The service's primary function is online play. Everything else is just a bonus (some of which, like save backups, should be available without it, but that's another story).

Nintendo has already said in response to if they're bringing the Virtual Console back that they are not.

They are from now on going to "offer" the games that were previously on the Virtual Console, on the subscription service.

I know they aren't planning on another VC, but do you have a source for them saying that Nintendo Online's game part is meant to replace it? My understanding is that it's just NES games, and even then, it's going to be an even slower drip-feed of games than we're used to with prior VC's.

Revelation34 posted...

I would rather pirate it if I was going to play it for that price.

And again, we get back to the part where you try to suggest that a quality, 30-hour RPG isn't worth $10.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

But I think perhaps games made by defunct companies that nobody has picked up after a certain amount of years, can go into public domain.

I expect that will eventually happen, but I believe the standard is 75 years for music to go public domain. Games just haven't been around for long enough for that to kick in.

Bummer.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Physical items are always better.

You're making an absolute statement of value, not a relative one. Preferring physical does nothing to explain how being digital reduces its value below $10.

_AdjI_ posted...

You're making an absolute statement of value, not a relative one. Preferring physical does nothing to explain how being digital reduces its value below $10.

We already went over that.
---