4 ms·

Emulators themselves do not constitute copyright infringement. For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo I can do so and run

Emulators themselves do not constitute copyright infringement. For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo I can do so and run it on an emulator or build a cartridge and flash it on there to play it on the real system. The copyright infringement starts when you're making unauthorized copies of the data on game cartridges.

baddox 15y ago
The world you describe sounds pretty reasonable, but don't count on it reflecting reality.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Tichy 15y ago
"For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo" That is not the same thing as writing a Super Nintendo emulator and selling it. I can think of lots of things that could be copyrighted about Super Nintendo's "OS".
- joel_ms 15y ago
  Only the the actual implementation code (and subsequent compiled result) is under copyright, anyone is free to write an independent implementation that's not based on any of the original copyrighted code. (There is of course the possibility of patents covering the innovations in the SNES, but that's a separate issue from copyright, and I have no idea how software patents in Japan worked around the time the SNES got released.)
  - jbermudes 15y ago
    That's a good point. I believe the patents on the NES Lockout chip expired recently and hence the flood of NES/Famicom hardware clones in recent years.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    So APIs are not copyrightable?
    - joel_ms 15y ago
      Good question. Copyright is concerned with protecting original works, so it depends on what exactly you're referring to by "API". My interpretation is that the technical document describing an API is an original work and that the library implementing an API is an original work (provided they do not copy or modify existing works protected by copyright, then they are derivative works), but the idea the API conveys is not protected by copyright (this is what's known as the idea-expression divide[1]). This is further complicated by the fact that we're discussing the law here so we can't assume anything to be logical or consistent. In the US, the DMCA have specific portions concerning the legality of reverse engineering for various purposes, which have implications for someone wishing to write an independent implementation of an API[2]. Maybe someone would argue that any implementation written according to the API specification is a derivative work? I don't think there's a definitive answer to your question, since AFAIK this haven't been tested in court. In fact, in the ongoing patent/copyright dispute between Oracle and Google, Oracle claims Google violated Oracle's copyright by reproducing Java API's in Android[3]. (Disclaimer: IANAL, and I've probably misinterpreted something along the way) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-api-a-breach-of-copyright http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-api... [3] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf (p. 9)
Macha 15y ago
The removed apps infringe the copyright of the emulators they were copied from as they do not adhere to the license terms (non-commercial only for snes9x in snesoid, GPL for Mupen64Plus in n64oid and so on). This isn't about the legality of all emulators, just yongzh's.

baddox 15y ago

The world you describe sounds pretty reasonable, but don't count on it reflecting reality.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Tichy 15y ago

"For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo" That is not the same thing as writing a Super Nintendo emulator and selling it. I can think of lots of things that could be copyrighted about Super Nintendo's "OS".

joel_ms 15y ago
Only the the actual implementation code (and subsequent compiled result) is under copyright, anyone is free to write an independent implementation that's not based on any of the original copyrighted code. (There is of course the possibility of patents covering the innovations in the SNES, but that's a separate issue from copyright, and I have no idea how software patents in Japan worked around the time the SNES got released.)
- jbermudes 15y ago
  That's a good point. I believe the patents on the NES Lockout chip expired recently and hence the flood of NES/Famicom hardware clones in recent years.
- Tichy 15y ago
  So APIs are not copyrightable?
  - joel_ms 15y ago
    Good question. Copyright is concerned with protecting original works, so it depends on what exactly you're referring to by "API". My interpretation is that the technical document describing an API is an original work and that the library implementing an API is an original work (provided they do not copy or modify existing works protected by copyright, then they are derivative works), but the idea the API conveys is not protected by copyright (this is what's known as the idea-expression divide[1]). This is further complicated by the fact that we're discussing the law here so we can't assume anything to be logical or consistent. In the US, the DMCA have specific portions concerning the legality of reverse engineering for various purposes, which have implications for someone wishing to write an independent implementation of an API[2]. Maybe someone would argue that any implementation written according to the API specification is a derivative work? I don't think there's a definitive answer to your question, since AFAIK this haven't been tested in court. In fact, in the ongoing patent/copyright dispute between Oracle and Google, Oracle claims Google violated Oracle's copyright by reproducing Java API's in Android[3]. (Disclaimer: IANAL, and I've probably misinterpreted something along the way) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-api-a-breach-of-copyright http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-api... [3] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf (p. 9)

Macha 15y ago

The removed apps infringe the copyright of the emulators they were copied from as they do not adhere to the license terms (non-commercial only for snes9x in snesoid, GPL for Mupen64Plus in n64oid and so on). This isn't about the legality of all emulators, just yongzh's.