5 ms·

Absolutely this. The firmware contains copyrighted data and that data is also critical to the functioning of the Switch, both emulated and real. Modern handhel

Absolutely this. The firmware contains copyrighted data and that data is also critical to the functioning of the Switch, both emulated and real. Modern handhelds are not like the older ones, there's actually an OS involved and a lot of per-system settings that uniquely identify your Switch-- especially when it connects to Nintendo's servers or authenticates if you're allowed to play a digital game.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> it connects to Nintendo's servers or authenticates if you're allowed to play a digital game Always wondered about that. I have no doubt all current systems do this sort of thing. How does the emulator handle it?
- dfxm12 5y ago
  I don't know in this specific case, but for other games/emulators you can either use a hacked version of the game that doesn't require a security check, or, if you can reverse engineer what the authentication server does, point the game to some other server (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd#CD_key_non-interoperability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd#CD_key_non-interoperabil...) that acts that the authentication server.
dabeledo 5y ago
Older handhelds had also their quirks! The original gameboy boot bios would load the Nintendo logo from the cartridge ROM and would run a "checksum" of the logo data, to compare it with a constant value stored in the Bios itself - it the logo in the cartridge is the copyrighted Nintendo logo, it would start the game. With that Nintendo wanted to be sure that any cartridge would require a copyrighted logo so a License would be technically required.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  SEGA also did this! The so-called trademark security systems. Completely insecure, but violating it gave the console manufacturer the perfect excuse to sue the violator. Lawsuits involving this system had really interesting results. In one case, the judges not only ruled that the trademark infringement was fair use, they said that SEGA made the trademark infringement necessary in order to produce compatible games due to their own security system. The infringement was SEGA's own fault! The world used to be great before DMCA criminalized even the attempt to cricumvent these things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
  - sekh60 5y ago
    Not really adding anything to the discussion, but thanks for telling us about that ruling - it really sounds absurd in these dark DMCA days.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      You might also be interested in the Bleem and Virtual Game Station lawsuits. They're notable because they involve commercial emulators, nobody settled out of court and it clearly demonstrates how large and rich companies abuse the legal system to put their smaller competitors out of business. I'm not a lawyer so I don't fully understand the laws here. I found they were quite easy to read though. Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7166769136737271634 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727... Sony complained that Connectix copied their copyrighted code during the reverse engineering process. This is obviously necessary in order to reverse engineer the code, access the unprotected ideas embodied in it and produce compatible products. It was ruled as fair use. Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11837224078052556056 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118372240780525... Sony complained about their use of screenshots of copyrighted games in advertising. This is comparative advertising intended to show that the emulator performs as intended, which is obviously good for consumers. It was ruled as fair use. Despite this precedent, I still see companies issuing DMCA claims to emulator developers whenever they find some screenshot on an emulator website! It makes me wish some judge would award the developers millions just to punish the audacity of these companies. They're wrong but they know the developers won't ever take it to court so they take advantage of the situation. Also, at no point is the legality of emulators ever disputed. It's not even a gray area. Emulators are competitors. They compete directly with the original hardware. They even try to argue that these competing products will tarnish their trademarks! Sony lost all lawsuits yet they won in the end, because judges granted injunctions which prevented the smaller companies from selling their emulator software. That led to their ruin and the discontinuation of their emulator development. This was their goal all along. Their arguments are clearly insane, they just wanted some shoddy excuse to take their competitors to court and burn their money. In a just world, the judges would calculate the amount of lost profits caused by Sony and make them pay with interest.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> it connects to Nintendo's servers or authenticates if you're allowed to play a digital game Always wondered about that. I have no doubt all current systems do this sort of thing. How does the emulator handle it?

dfxm12 5y ago
I don't know in this specific case, but for other games/emulators you can either use a hacked version of the game that doesn't require a security check, or, if you can reverse engineer what the authentication server does, point the game to some other server (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd#CD_key_non-interoperability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd#CD_key_non-interoperabil...) that acts that the authentication server.

dabeledo 5y ago

Older handhelds had also their quirks! The original gameboy boot bios would load the Nintendo logo from the cartridge ROM and would run a "checksum" of the logo data, to compare it with a constant value stored in the Bios itself - it the logo in the cartridge is the copyrighted Nintendo logo, it would start the game. With that Nintendo wanted to be sure that any cartridge would require a copyrighted logo so a License would be technically required.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
SEGA also did this! The so-called trademark security systems. Completely insecure, but violating it gave the console manufacturer the perfect excuse to sue the violator. Lawsuits involving this system had really interesting results. In one case, the judges not only ruled that the trademark infringement was fair use, they said that SEGA made the trademark infringement necessary in order to produce compatible games due to their own security system. The infringement was SEGA's own fault! The world used to be great before DMCA criminalized even the attempt to cricumvent these things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
- sekh60 5y ago
  Not really adding anything to the discussion, but thanks for telling us about that ruling - it really sounds absurd in these dark DMCA days.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    You might also be interested in the Bleem and Virtual Game Station lawsuits. They're notable because they involve commercial emulators, nobody settled out of court and it clearly demonstrates how large and rich companies abuse the legal system to put their smaller competitors out of business. I'm not a lawyer so I don't fully understand the laws here. I found they were quite easy to read though. Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7166769136737271634 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727... Sony complained that Connectix copied their copyrighted code during the reverse engineering process. This is obviously necessary in order to reverse engineer the code, access the unprotected ideas embodied in it and produce compatible products. It was ruled as fair use. Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11837224078052556056 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118372240780525... Sony complained about their use of screenshots of copyrighted games in advertising. This is comparative advertising intended to show that the emulator performs as intended, which is obviously good for consumers. It was ruled as fair use. Despite this precedent, I still see companies issuing DMCA claims to emulator developers whenever they find some screenshot on an emulator website! It makes me wish some judge would award the developers millions just to punish the audacity of these companies. They're wrong but they know the developers won't ever take it to court so they take advantage of the situation. Also, at no point is the legality of emulators ever disputed. It's not even a gray area. Emulators are competitors. They compete directly with the original hardware. They even try to argue that these competing products will tarnish their trademarks! Sony lost all lawsuits yet they won in the end, because judges granted injunctions which prevented the smaller companies from selling their emulator software. That led to their ruin and the discontinuation of their emulator development. This was their goal all along. Their arguments are clearly insane, they just wanted some shoddy excuse to take their competitors to court and burn their money. In a just world, the judges would calculate the amount of lost profits caused by Sony and make them pay with interest.