I rekindled my love for Mario 3 on my Super Nintendo system and have gotten to the third world twice, only to be disappointed that it didn't save properly.

I always do Save & Continue or Save & Quit... and then the next day, all of the files are completely empty.

I know that SNES is prehistoric and might not work like it used to, but do any of y'all have ideas of how to get it to save?

8/1/2006 10:21:06 PM

i thought mario 3 was NES

8/1/2006 10:24:17 PM

buy new snes

8/1/2006 10:25:01 PM

^^maybe he has All Stars?

8/1/2006 10:39:50 PM

You might need a new battery for the catridge. (if SNES games use batteries for save that is)

8/1/2006 10:48:21 PM

if you own the cartridge can you legally ROM it? you might not be able to use the SNES controller but at least you can save.

8/1/2006 10:58:26 PM

^^ i recall some NES games had internal mem. and bats.

so id guess its possible that the same is true for the SNES carts -- they have onboard mem, which means you need a new cart, or you need to disect the cart, and find that bat, and replace it. thought that would be a feat, probably becuase its battery would be ancient.

8/1/2006 11:00:33 PM

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/game/916396.html
there's a walkthrough for replacing the battery in a cart there

8/2/2006 12:59:12 AM

^^^ you can legally have a rom of any game you own.

8/2/2006 1:02:48 AM

Quote :

"However, in the U.S. it has been illegal since 1983 for a user to create their own backups of video game ROMs. This was decided in the case of Atari v. JS&A-JS&A manufactured a "game backup" device that allowed users to dump their Atari ROMs onto a blank cartridge. JS&A argued that the archival rule allowed for this. The court disagreed, noting that ROM media was not subject to the same volatility as magnetic media (for which the law was created). Thus, not being so relatively vulnerable, ROMs were not applicable under section 17 USC 117."

8/2/2006 1:04:20 AM

interesting, all the rom sites say it is legal... of course they're not exactly legal experts. But this is a law to which I give a big Fuck You. We all know video games can go bad, as far as I know you still own the right to it even if it doesn't work.

It's not legal under that law... but what about just software licensing stuff...

What about discs being scratched and what not... do you own a license for the media on the disc or just the single disc itself? I don't have to have a disc to own a license and as long as I have that license I can legally download the software (or have as many discs as I want) and install one instance of it (or whatever the license allows) right? If that's the case at what point do you consider a video game software, and is that protected under the same laws? Or is it illegal for me to download software for which I have a license once the original disc goes bad?

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2006 1:13:17 AM

hell if i know

i know you can't copy games

do some research

8/2/2006 1:18:51 AM

It's legal if you "own" the game

8/2/2006 1:25:44 AM

I've found some stuff of people suggesting it's legal under "Personal use", which came into play in the Betamax Case.

There hasn't been an actual case arguing it for ROM's specifically that I could find. The way this would work is that you could make a copy of your legitimate game as long as you and nobody else used the copy. the results of the Betamax Case (after a quick glance, so don't bust my balls too bad) are that You can record a tv show, however you can not legally let your friends watch it or lend it out. Or borrow it from a friend.

In the case of a ROM you would be acquiring it from whoever owns the website so it would be illegal. You could make the ROM yourself for yourself alone. However, game copying devices themselves are illegal. So there's a bit of a problem.

sorry for going off topic, but it seemed like the problem was solved.

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 2:08 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2006 2:06:51 AM

nvm

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 2:09 AM. Reason : hmmm]

8/2/2006 2:09:03 AM

Quote :

"Anti-Piracy Forces Target Arcade Classics Anti-Piracy Forces Target Arcade Classics By John Borland, TechWeb.com Remember the quarter-burning arcade days, with hours spent pounding buttons on Galaxian or Pac-Man machines? For months, many of the classic arcade-style games have been available online, free to anyone with a computer and modem. The trouble is, the burgeoning game emulator underground that produces and distributes the games is breaking several sets of copyright laws, according to video-game trade associations. "We certainly have a problem with them," said Kathlene Karg, director of public policy with the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the leading trade group for video-game companies. "They are copyright violations. Those copyrights are still valid." A resurgence in the popularity of old arcade games is focusing corporate attention on these unauthorized online versions. Some of the copyright holders and licensees are stalling before taking legal action, however, leery of alienating their biggest online fans. Meanwhile, emulator programmers say they are simply rescuing long-dead titles from obscurity, and are not threatening the companies' copyrights. But the protests are not slowing the IDSA's campaign. The organization's anti-piracy group has been targeting game distribution sites for about six weeks, contacting both site owners and host ISPs, Karg said. "Over the last couple of weeks ... we've taken down 15," she said. The games run on software that mimics the performance of the original video-game platform. Programmers then study a game's original hardware to write a software "image" of the ROM chip containing the game's instructions. Together, the emulator and the ROM can create a near-perfect copy of the original graphics and gameplay. Although emulators have been around in some form since at least 1995, the explosion in classic game distribution was made possible by the development and release of the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) software for the PC in early 1997. Most previous versions focused on single platforms or games, but the MAME software supported most of the old standup arcade-style games. Since that time, a core of programmers around the world have added hundreds of games playable with the software. The past year has also seen a resurgence of interest in these old games. Companies struggling to stand out in a saturated game market are licensing classic titles with guaranteed name recognition, hoping to give their sales a boost. In addition to Hasbro's recent Atari purchases, the company publishes a successful Frogger game for Sony PlayStations and PCs. Activision recently licensed the Battlezone name to put on a tank strategy game. Some of the companies that hold the game copyrights and licenses are still unsure how to handle the emulator underground. "We are very aware that there is a strong community of classic game players online," said Dana Henry, spokeswoman for Hasbro Interactive. "We certainly don't want to alienate that base of fans," she added. Hasbro recently bought rights to the entire catalogue of classic Atari arcade titles, and plans to re-release many of them, Henry said. "We haven't formulated any plan on how to deal with those people," Henry added. "We still need to do research on what is out there." "We are exploring issues of legality as they apply to emulators," said Orrin Edidin, general counsel for Midway, one of the biggest manufacturers of early arcade games. The company has licensed several of its titles to console and computer game publishers, but has not yet taken any legal action to protect its property online, he added. "At this point we are looking into it." The IDSA, which represents many of the video-game companies, has no such compunctions about alienating fans. "The act of making a ROM is illegal. There is a copyright violation right there," said Karg. Allowing the games to be run and distributing the games online are also illegal under federal and international copyright law, she added. Although the association has not yet taken any legal action, officials "are contemplating that in several cases now," Karg said. The core programmers in the MAME community say they have not yet heard from the companies or the trade association. "I haven't been contacted by them, nor has any other programmer on the MAME team," wrote Brad Oliver, one of the MAME programmers who wrote the emulator software for the Mac platform, in an e-mail interview. "The emulators themselves are legal as I understand it -- they are really just black-box recreations of the original hardware." The distributors of the games know they are on shaky legal ground, however. Most sites offering the games post warnings telling users they should play the games only if they own the original game hardware, cannot sell or archive the game ROMS with the emulator software, and should delete the games after 24 hours if the other conditions are not met. Oliver and other MAME programmers call themselves "virtual archaeologists," bringing to life games that have long since disappeared into the obscurity of twenty-something trivia. "The thrill for me is twofold," Oliver said. "First, there's the rush of being able to play a game that you'd never thought you'd see again, let alone running on your computer. Second, the challenge of writing a MAME driver to get some obscure game working is just as rewarding." Writing the programs for individual games can be an easy 15-minute task or take months if the original had used obscure or well-protected hardware, Oliver added. "I recall the first time I got "Pop Flamer" to run I was in awe," he said. "Here was a game that I'd never heard of, but I had it running and now everyone would be able to enjoy it.""

8/2/2006 2:49:48 AM

here are two pretty good articles explaining the issue. They reference all the laws and cases involved.

This one explains how why it's illegal
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/EmuFAQ_M2P2.htm

this suggests that lawyers should argue the "personal use" stuff from the Betamax Case.
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/EmuFAQ_Y2KAddendum2.htm

This is a list and description of court cases involved.

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/AppendixB.htm

and a timeline

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/AppendixC.htm

This is directly from nintendo's site:
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html

Quote :

"Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game? [notice that this only conerns nintendo ROMs, some ROMs are legal] There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."

I find it interesting that they don't say that it is illegal for a rightful owner to make copies, but just that it is illegal to download and play them.

Anyhow, from what I've read elsewhere, the problem is that a ROM is not an exact copy, it is known as a "derivative", and legally the copyright owner must approve any derivative of their product, thus making ROMs illegal.

There are real "public domain" ROMs, they talk about it in the articles I linked. These are typically from companies that are older and gone mostly (and i've never heard of), although that is not why they are public domain. They are public domain because the company put them out there. So technically nintendo can make their games into ROMs (developers can legally make ROMs) and make them public domain (of course this won't happen).

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 4:34 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2006 4:29:47 AM

Just push the 'F5' key.

8/2/2006 8:31:33 AM

Federal US law allows a user to make as many archival copies as necessary, including relocation to a different medium of storage. Title 17 USC Section 117 backs up this claim:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

* Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
1. That such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or,
2. That such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Any exact copes prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with authorizarion of the copyright owner.

8/2/2006 1:16:05 PM

Quote :

""However, in the U.S. it has been illegal since 1983 for a user to create their own backups of video game ROMs. This was decided in the case of Atari v. JS&A-JS&A manufactured a "game backup" device that allowed users to dump their Atari ROMs onto a blank cartridge. JS&A argued that the archival rule allowed for this. The court disagreed, noting that ROM media was not subject to the same volatility as magnetic media (for which the law was created). Thus, not being so relatively vulnerable, ROMs were not applicable under section 17 USC 117.""

8/2/2006 1:24:21 PM

That's a bunch of horseshit that would not hold water in court a "second time" around,

8/2/2006 1:42:09 PM

whatever you say, your honor

8/2/2006 2:40:34 PM

Quote :

" The case concerned Connectix's development of software which emulated the Sony PlayStation. This emulator enabled a user to run a PlayStation-compatible game on a Macintosh computer. To ensure compatibility between the emulator and the PlayStation games, Connectix had to reverse engineer2 the Sony PlayStation. One step of the reverse engineering process involved loading the PlayStation's basic input/output system (BIOS) into a computer and running it repeatedly as Connectix engineers developed software which interacted with the BIOS. Once they completed this software, the Connectix engineers developed their own BIOS to interact with the software. The repeated running of the BIOS caused the making of numerous temporary copies of the BIOS in the computer's random access memory (RAM). Sony asserted that these copies infringed its copyright in the BIOS. Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Sega Enters., Ltd., v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992), Connectix responded that these temporary copies were excused under the fair use doctrine because they were necessary for the uncovering of elements unprotected by Sony's copyright, i.e., the BIOS's interface specifications. Sony countered by arguing that Connectix could have avoided making the RAM copies of the BIOS had it followed a different development process. Connectix could have developed its own BIOS at the beginning, and used that BIOS in the development of the interoperable software, rather than use the Sony BIOS in the development of the interoperable software, and then develop its own BIOS. The court rejected Sony's argument out of hand: Even if we were inclined to supervise the engineering solutions of software companies in minute detail, and we are not, our application of the copyright law would not turn on such a distinction….[T]he rule urged by Sony would require that a software engineer, faced with two engineering solutions that each require intermediate copying of protected and unprotected material, often follow the least efficient solution…..This is precisely the kind of 'wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts …[i]s designed to prevent.' Sony, 2000 U.S. App., LEXIS 1744, at *24 (citations omitted). The court further observed that: [s]uch an approach would erect an artificial hurdle in the way of the public's access to the ideas contained within copyrighted software programs. …. We decline to erect such a barrier in this case. If Sony wishes to obtain a lawful monopoly in the functional concepts in its software, it must satisfy the more stringent standards of the patent laws. Id. at *24-25. In short, the Ninth Circuit refused to supervise the engineering solutions of software companies in minute detail. It declined to force engineers to follow inefficient procedures. Instead, the court focused on the big picture - what Connectix was trying to do, and how that comported with the objectives of the copyright law. Taken to an even higher level of generality, the court seems to be saying that we should not be concerned with the process, but with the end result. In other words, our laws should not restrict intermediate steps or products. Instead, our laws should prohibit only finished products that infringe intellectual property rights, or the harmful use of noninfringing products (e.g., using a personal computer to upload infringing material onto the Internet). Unfortunately, Congress did not follow this approach in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), with baleful results. As the recent digital versatile disc (DVD) cases3 show, strict application of the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions appear to inhibit the development of a Linux-compatible DVD drive. The reason is that the DMCA prohibits technologies which circumvent measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to or reproduction of copyrighted works, even if the technologies have a substantial non-infringing use. A Linux compatible DVD drive could be used, for example, to play a lawfully purchased DVD on a computer with a Linux operating system.4 By inhibiting the development of Linux compatible DVD drives, the DMCA hinders the ability of Linux to compete with Microsoft Windows; Linux can emerge as a significant competitor to Windows only if it offers all the functionality of Windows. Surely Congress did not intend this result when it enacted the DMCA. But such unintended consequences occur when the law focuses on intermediate steps -- for example, circumvention and circumvention technologies -- rather than the end result. As they embark on further regulation of technology, lawmakers should keep in mind this lesson of Sony v. Connectix. © 2000 Jonathan Band. Mr. Band is a partner with Morrison & Foerster, LLP. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to Morrison & Foerster. 1 Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., Case No. 99-15852, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1744 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2000). 2 The Supreme Court defined reverse engineering, in Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476 (1974), as "starting with a known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture." 3 Universal City Studios, Inc., v. Reimerdes, Case No. 00-277 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 14, 2000); DVD Copy Control Ass'n Inc., v. McLaughlin, Case No. CV-786804 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 27, 1999). 4 It appears that the DVD Forum recently granted a license for the development of a Linux-compatible DVD drive. InterVideo Announces Software DVD Player for Linux; Brings Award-Winning DVD Technology to Llinux Market, BUS. WIRE (March 31, 2000) <http://www.businesswire.com> available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, News Group File. While this, of course, is a positive development, the ability to develop interoperable products should not depend on the willingness of a platform vendor to permit the interoperability. A company should not be granted the legal power to determine the terms under which other firms may compete against it. "

And, nintendo would not bar down on anyone not distrubuting the roms. So, just download freely.

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : psssh]

8/2/2006 3:48:01 PM

first off... that is talking about emulation not ROMs. Having and making emulators is 100% legal, because of that case actually. This is all in the very first article I linked; have you not read it? Emulators being legal doesn't make ROMs legal. As of matter of fact the specific emulator they're talking about in that case didn't even play ROMs, it uses actual Playstation games. As in go buy a Playstation game, come home and put it in your Mac and play it.

And second, just because Nintendo wouldn't pursue an individual user doesn't make it legal. Very few people actually get charged for illegally downloading music and software, that doesn't make it OK to do so.

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 8:28 PM. Reason : sp]

8/2/2006 8:19:44 PM

OP - its not your system, its the cart's battery. Nintendo sometimes will magically replace them for free, can't hurt to give 'em a buzz. Worked for me with an old NES Zelda cart.

8/2/2006 11:04:06 PM

Quote :

"The court disagreed, noting that ROM media was not subject to the same volatility as magnetic media (for which the law was created). Thus, not being so relatively vulnerable, ROMs were not applicable under section 17 USC 117."

Ha, I'd cite "I can no longer play my NES games on a blinky system, so I relocated the game to a different medium of storage."

Not being magnetic in nature, I guess backing up any PC-CD or PC-DVD is also out of the question. We all know that CDs can't be scratched.

Link to free NES emulator:
http://whywontyouplaynes.ytmnd.com/

8/3/2006 7:27:41 AM