What's the point of Frank Cafaldi's prototype archiving, if the data is never shared?

[RH | 4,918]

The question in the title is not a slam against him or his foundation, but this is something I really struggle with understanding.  If ever an unreleased game is discovered for a game system, or maybe an early prototype/build of a famous game, one of the things that seemingly reasonable people tend to suggest to the owners is that they "send it to Frank Cifaldi and have it archived."

Well, I can understand the desire to preserve the data, but it's also my understanding that he respects the rights of the owner and doesn't distribute the ROMs if the owner doesn't want it to be shared.  I can respect that he is respecting the owners and, by doing that, he has been able to dump a lot of ROMs.  However, one should still ask, what's even the point of the process if the preserved data is never allowed to be distributed. used, analyzed, etc.

I'm not talking about dumping ROMs and the owners allowing for it to be distributed at a later time.  I'm talking about the rare instance where someone finds a prototype, sends it to Frank to archive, and then decides to put it on their shelf and let it's existence fade with time.  Why bother?  I've seen this suggested and I assume it's happened.  I just don't get the point because at some point that information needs to be "freed".

Edited December 6, 2023 by RH

[a3quit4s | 4,103]

I think the idea is to have it somewhere rather than nowhere in case the original is lost

[RH | 4,918]

2 minutes ago, a3quit4s said:

I think the idea is to have it somewhere rather than nowhere in case the original is lost

I mean, I kind of get that, but practically speaking, if you have a rare proto and you don't want to share the ROM, then there's a good chance that if you had it dumped in the archive, at some point you will move, maybe sell it to someone and not keep records and eventually the proto will be "lost".  

Having the data setting in a server flagged as "do not share" does no one good if it's going to stay that way in perpetuity.  I guess my point is--why have it archived if you (as the owner) have no, current intention of selling and/or sharing this info.  And some people do fall into that camp.

[spacepup | 2,405]

Think of this from a longer term perspective.  A non-profit organization is set up with no end-date, and can continue on for many years, not just the timespan of one individual, one director, etc.  

I don't believe these or other items are preserved literally NEVER to be shared.  At some point, it will be legal to share that information, and because an ongoing organization preserved them, that will be possible.  If they were never stored in the first place, that opportunity would be lost forever.

I understand that people want access to data now, and get frustrated when THEY can't access something now, but for longer term preservation, I encourage people to widen their views and think of the bigger picture, regarding data literally being lost for ALL time.

If an item is sent to an organization like VGHF and preserved now, there is at least a chance (a strong chance, I'll add) that the data WILL be accessible at some point in time.  If that never happens at all, there is an even greater chance the data will NEVER be accessible by anyone.

[RH | 4,918]

Just now, spacepup said:

Think of this from a longer term perspective.  A non-profit organization is set up with no end-date, and continue on for many years, not just the timespan of one individual, one director, etc.  

I don't believe these or other items are preserved literally NEVER to be shared.  At some point, it will be legal to share that information, and because an ongoing organization preserved them, that will be possible.  If they were never stored in the first place, that opportunity would be lost forever.

I understand that people want access to data now, and get frustrated when THEY can't access something now, but for longer term preservation, I encourage people to widen their views and think of the bigger picture, regarding data literally being lost for ALL time.

But that's not true in all cases and that's kind of my point.  If contractually, Frank agrees to not share a dumped prototype until he's given a permission by the owners then, well, unless there's a governmental collapse and American contracts are worthless, then by law he can't share that information in perpetuity.

Within that subset of people that don't want him to share it, I'd dare say a large percentage of those games will never receive permission to be released.  IMHO, a better approach would be only to dump games where the holder would agree to release it, but there can be a time limit--1 year, 5, 10, 50?  Whatever.  The reason why I'd make it as part of the original agreement is so that this data isn't lost due to legalese issues where someone wanted to "feel good" about dumping a game to only then let it get lost to time.

I guess, part of my issues is some times protos make news when they are discovered and the owners decide they want to keep it for themselves.  That fine, I suppose.  It's not illegal and I greatly respect the rights of people's personal property.  But why would anyone be motivated to have the data preserved if you never intend to distribute it as the sole-owner?  I guess, maybe, people do it to justify their hoarding? 

[BlackVega | 583]

This is the first time I have ever heard of that name but I guess there is always the 1st time for everything. Personally I would not do that because again, what's the point and I am the one who have the proper equipment and knowledge to do something like this so I would definitely take that matter into my own hands. My guess is that the humanity usually tends to find some sort of celebrity or some sort of a leader or authority figure for everything in life. Unfortunately I think not everyone is very smart and falls for this. At the same time I think your original post makes some sort of concern or doubt about the entire operation being not legitimate. Whoever that individual is should definitely address some of these concerns. Who wants to just send stuff for free for someone who is not trustworthy and just tells everyone "trust me bruh"??

[spacepup | 2,405]

6 minutes ago, RH said:

But that's not true in all cases and that's kind of my point.  If contractually, Frank agrees to not share a dumped prototype until he's given a permission by the owners then, well, unless there's a governmental collapse and American contracts are worthless, then by law he can't share that information in perpetuity.

Within that subset of people that don't want him to share it, I'd dare say a large percentage of those games will never receive permission to be released.  IMHO, a better approach would be only to dump games where the holder would agree to release it, but there can be a time limit--1 year, 5, 10, 50?  Whatever.  The reason why I'd make it as part of the original agreement is so that this data isn't lost due to legalese issues where someone wanted to "feel good" about dumping a game to only then let it get lost to time.

I guess, part of my issues is some times protos make news when they are discovered and the owners decide they want to keep it for themselves.  That fine, I suppose.  It's not illegal and I greatly respect the rights of people's personal property.  But why would anyone be motivated to have the data preserved if you never intend to distribute it as the sole-owner?  I guess, maybe, people do it to justify their hoarding? 

Eventually, due to copyright laws, the data will be accessible.  And yes, I know copyright is complicated and Disney yada yada, but yes, eventually the data will be available.

Additionally, in the meantime, the organization can internally review, process, analyze, share information about, certain items.  

Point being, there isn't a situation where the data is literally locked away FOREVER.

[spacepup | 2,405]

7 minutes ago, BlackVega said:

This is the first time I have ever heard of that name but I guess there is always the 1st time for everything. Personally I would not do that because again, what's the point and I am the one who have the proper equipment and knowledge to do something like this so I would definitely take that matter into my own hands. My guess is that the humanity usually tends to find some sort of celebrity or some sort of a leader or authority figure for everything in life. Unfortunately I think not everyone is very smart and falls for this. At the same time I think your original post makes some sort of concern or doubt about the entire operation being not legitimate. Whoever that individual is should definitely address some of these concerns. Who wants to just send stuff for free for someone who is not trustworthy and just tells everyone "trust me bruh"??

It is a legitimate operation and while people refer to Frank as an individual, he works for and represents a legal non-profit organization, Video Game History Foundation, which is very much a legitimate organization, with a number of different projects, above and beyond just this particular one.

If you aren't familiar, you can find out more here: https://gamehistory.org/

 

[RH | 4,918]

5 minutes ago, spacepup said:

Eventually, due to copyright laws, the data will be accessible.  And yes, I know copyright is complicated and Disney yada yada, but yes, eventually the data will be available.

Additionally, in the meantime, the organization can internally review, process, analyze, share information about, certain items.  

Point being, there isn't a situation where the data is literally locked away FOREVER.

Ok, that's a good point.  I wasn't thinking about it like that, I suppose.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,090]

10 hours ago, spacepup said:

Eventually, due to copyright laws, the data will be accessible.

I'll believe that the day Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain.  I honestly think there is a shift happening and we're moving toward a "this is ours and we own if forever" copyright paradigm here in the West...

[Gloves | 11,794]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I'll believe that the day Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain.  I honestly think there is a shift happening and we're moving toward a "this is ours and we own if forever" copyright paradigm here in the West...

Honestly I don't even really see the problem with that. Winnie the Pooh is public domain now, so people can do what they want with that IP (not Tigger though!). But like who gives a shit? I can do whatever I want with someone else's creative idea? Like, make something original maybe?

[twiztor | 851]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I'll believe that the day Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain. 

this will take place January 1st, 2024

[a3quit4s | 4,103]

1 minute ago, twiztor said:

this will take place January 1st, 2024

Mokey the mouse is already in the public domain lmao

[Tulpa | 3,516]

1 hour ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I'll believe that the day Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain.  I honestly think there is a shift happening and we're moving toward a "this is ours and we own if forever" copyright paradigm here in the West...

Not in the US. The constitution prohibits perpetual copyright. It may be a long period, but it can't be forever without an amendment to change that part.

Mickey Mouse is trademarked, which don't have limits as long as the current user keeps using it. Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy (and I think Gallopin' Gaucho) will go into the public domain in January.

 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,090]

4 hours ago, Gloves said:

Honestly I don't even really see the problem with that. Winnie the Pooh is public domain now, so people can do what they want with that IP (not Tigger though!). But like who gives a shit? I can do whatever I want with someone else's creative idea? Like, make something original maybe?

I agree with you in theory, but something would definitely be lost.  Think of all the Disney classics that rely on ripping off, I mean rely on retelling other people's stories that have fallen into the public domain.  The animated classic that got the whole ball rolling for them (Snow White) wouldn't exist, for starters, never mind most of their best animated movies that came after.

I think the powers that be should just set a really long time period, like say: one hundred years for you and your kin to make a bajillion dollars off of your hard work, and after that your creation is recognized as a part of our history and thus belongs to humanity at large.  Like what if some random 35th cousin of Mozart was getting royalties every time a piece of Mozart's music was used anywhere in the world 250 years after it was written?  I mean, you've gotta draw the line somewhere.  Your principle is sound, but it just doesn't feel... right...

[Tulpa | 3,516]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I think the powers that be should just set a really long time period, like say: one hundred years for you and your kin to make a bajillion dollars off of your hard work, and after that your creation is recognized as a part of our history and thus belongs to humanity at large. 

That's pretty much how it is now.

Copyright owned by individual: lifetime + 70 years

Copyright owned by corporation: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

[Link | 2,714]

I don't think the owner of a game prototype they didn't create has copyright. 

[Gentlegamer | 174]

did Redeye ever share the proto for BIO FORCE APE?

[fcgamer | 4,729]

12 minutes ago, Gentlegamer said:

did Redeye ever share the proto for BIO FORCE APE?

Agreed, but what do the signed forms say, if frank signs and agrees to not spread it then contractually he can't spread it...

[spacepup | 2,405]

1 hour ago, Link said:

I don't think the owner of a game prototype they didn't create has copyright. 

Agree.  I'm referring to copyright of the actual data itself.

Having said that, I do not know what sort of legal contract is in place between the organization and the person lending such an item, or what terms are specified there.

At any rate, I think what some people maybe overlook regarding these matters, is that in some cases, it is either preserve an item properly with an organization like this, with eventual access at some point, or never access anything ever.  

Some people with protos will dump and share the info regardless.  But for those who don't or won't for whatever reasons, if this creates an opportunity for *anyone* else to have the data just in case, that is much better than nothing.

[DeterioratingBrains | 6]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:40 PM, RH said:

The question in the title is not a slam against him or his foundation, but this is something I really struggle with understanding.  If ever an unreleased game is discovered for a game system, or maybe an early prototype/build of a famous game, one of the things that seemingly reasonable people tend to suggest to the owners is that they "send it to Frank Cifaldi and have it archived."

Well, I can understand the desire to preserve the data, but it's also my understanding that he respects the rights of the owner and doesn't distribute the ROMs if the owner doesn't want it to be shared.  I can respect that he is respecting the owners and, by doing that, he has been able to dump a lot of ROMs.  However, one should still ask, what's even the point of the process if the preserved data is never allowed to be distributed. used, analyzed, etc.

I'm not talking about dumping ROMs and the owners allowing for it to be distributed at a later time.  I'm talking about the rare instance where someone finds a prototype, sends it to Frank to archive, and then decides to put it on their shelf and let it's existence fade with time.  Why bother?  I've seen this suggested and I assume it's happened.  I just don't get the point because at some point that information needs to be "freed".

Funny how people like you never ask questions like "what's the point of archiving cans of 35mm films when those can't be released in this day and age?" Guess what, there may be legal reasons, lack of distributor interested in the title, refusal to exploit the movie given by the (late) director, etc. etc.

Should we then close all film archives, tear apart the library of congress? Should we set fire to museum basements where less relevant pieces are stored but not necessarily displayed?

It's not because you can't access the organization assets that its work is not relevant or pointless.

Edited December 7, 2023 by DeterioratingBrains

[T-Pac | 7,560]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the contractual obligation not to release data wouldn't be affected by the copyright status of that data.

Imagine if those services that digitize old VHS home movies just ignored a contract like that because "your home movies aren't protected by copyright" and decided to upload everything in their archive to YouTube...

It's not a perfect comparison since the ROM data doesn't "belong" to the prototype owner, but contracts are contracts are contracts.

[T-Pac]

[spacepup | 2,405]

16 minutes ago, T-Pac said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the contractual obligation not to release data wouldn't be affected by the copyright status of that data.

Imagine if those services that digitize old VHS home movies just ignored a contract like that because "your home movies aren't protected by copyright" and decided to upload everything in their archive to YouTube...

It's not a perfect comparison since the ROM data doesn't "belong" to the prototype owner, but contracts are contracts are contracts.

[T-Pac]

I understand this point as well, which is why I mentioned contracts above.  

I have no idea what is in these contracts.  I have no idea if both parties are signing something saying data will never ever be released under any circumstances for the rest of time, or if it something entirely different.  People can speculate of course about the terms of those contracts, but without knowing for sure, I generally wouldn't assume that it is some ironclad agreement about hoarding of data for all of eternity.  But who knows.

Even if such a contract was very strict, for the organization never to release any data, ever.  I still imagine that the preserved item could be used for some level of research, analysis, sharing of some types of information.  And I'd prefer limited access over no access ever, if that is the choice of course.

[T-Pac | 7,560]

1 minute ago, spacepup said:

I understand this point as well, which is why I mentioned contracts above.  

I have no idea what is in these contracts.  I have no idea if both parties are signing something saying data will never ever be released under any circumstances for the rest of time, or if it something entirely different.  People can speculate of course about the terms of those contracts, but without knowing for sure, I generally wouldn't assume that it is some ironclad agreement about hoarding of data for all of eternity.  But who knows.

Very true. And as someone who's a stickler for copyright but would love to play some prototypes one day, I can only hope that the legal system gets a much-needed overhaul in favor of getting stuff into the public domain sooner - and that contracts to withhold data aren't so ironclad, like you mentioned. 

[T-Pac]

[GPX | 1,370]

I feel the issue should really about Nintendo (or the original producer of the game) jumping in and do a service to their fans who have a hunger for the prototype experience. It doesn’t have to be present day, but at least sometime in the future. Particularly when the prototype owner doesn’t want anyone else to own their copy or experience their prototype version. Really, Nintendo should have the final say in the copyright of the gaming experience, not the prototype owner.

There seems to always be a grey area whether in gaming or collecting, that ethics become obligatory murky. This is likely one of those instances.