10 ms·

I think they were crazy to even try. Just let it exist within RetroArch - in-fact I hope it doesn’t draw attention to RetroArch after this incident

dcchambers 3y ago
Have to agree with this. Nintendo is infamously litigious. I know that many people say the debate over emulators is "settled" and they are perfectly legal, but I'd rather not poke the bear and just keep things as they are. Emulators are an invaluable tool for game preservation...and I don't want to see one of, if not the best emulator ever, be forced to cease development.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Is it your position that no entity should ever try to challenge a big company's interpretation of the law, however ridiculous it may be? At that point, why even have a judicial system?
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    Many people agree but don't have the resources or are risking too much if they try. If you think you can make a difference, the world will welcome you.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    It’s an expensive theory to test. I would imagine most OSS projects or their contributors are not in a financial position to get to court, let alone see the trial to a conclusion. I don’t know what to do about it, but it seems we’ve fell into aristocracy of ruling corporations.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      That's what advocate and civil rights organizations are for. I bet the likes of the EFF would be very interested in taking this case. It aligns with their incentives to take down the DMCA.
      - viraptor 3y ago
        If EFF is very interested, they can find a way to test it themselves. But here, even with EFF's help the developers would be still exposed to risk. EFF is not able to say "we'll fight this for you, pay 100% of expenses and your time's worth, and go jail instead of you if things turn really bad".
  - favorited 3y ago
    Because the last time it was litigated in the US, the good guys won. But SCEA v. Bleem was over 20 years ago, and there's no guarantee that the courts won't roll back protections for emulation development. NoA is notoriously vindictive & litigious, and they have more money than the Dolphin devs. Even though Sony lost the case, the lawsuit ruined Bleem. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Nintendo will try to do the same thing to Dolphin, Ryujinx, Yuzu, etc.
    - dingledork69 3y ago
      So when a bigcorp says jump you expect everyone to just do so?
      - falcolas 3y ago
        I think the point is, you’re welcome to place yourself in Nintendos crosshairs, and we’ll cheer you on as you pit your billions against Nintendos billions, fighting for a favorable ruling. Dolphin developers apparently are not in a position to pit billions against Nintendo. Can’t blame them either.
        dingledork69 3y ago
        [flagged]
        falcolas 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dingledork69 3y ago
        [flagged]
        LocalH 3y ago
        I mean, I support emulation fully, I believe that "it's always morally correct to pirate Nintendo", and I even believe that piracy is preservation, but come on. The Dolphin devs included the Wii keys, which was so incredibly stupid, probably one of the few completely brain dead actions that the Dolphin team has taken in the entirety of the emulator's history.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    Every interaction with IP law is a total gamble and if you lose you are gone forever. It's best to take as few gambles as possible
  - rcxdude 3y ago
    The main point is that it's not a good survival strategy for a hobbyist project that may draw the ire of a big company: even if the companies legal action is completely frivolous, it can easily destroy the project (basically the only option they actually have is enough public outcry to get the company to back off due to the bad publicity). Generally speaking laying low is the better option. It sucks, and it's a big problem with the current judicial system, but it is the status quo. It would take someone able and willing to put some serious resources into a risky bet to change that.
  - Tams80 3y ago
    Sometimes it's just better to settle for good enough, or in this case pretty damn good. But no, some of you want the most convenient way. Only this time, that's painted a massive target on the back of what you want.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  While Nintendo is infamously litigious, there's speculation (without concrete evidence either way) that the recent string of DMCA takedown requests were not made by Nintendo themselves, but by someone impersonating them (as for why, who knows, some people get very caught up in the "emulation hurts game studios" line of thinking).
  - wtallis 3y ago
    That seems implausible. There's only one way for the sender of a DMCA takedown notice to get in serious trouble, and that's by lying about being authorized by the copyright holder to send DMCA notices over their works: > 17 U.S. Code §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (emphasis added)
    - Retr0id 3y ago
      Submitting a DMCA takedown request does not require any authentication beyond a declaration that you're telling the truth. Anyone can do it, even over a Tor connection.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        A DMCA notice requires the aforementioned declaration under penalty of perjury, plus some other declarations that are merely required to be good faith beliefs, plus contact information for the sender. That last bit makes it quite easy to discover that a DMCA notice was faked, thus quite risky for the sender: either they provide contact information for themselves that will be repudiated by the actual copyright holder should anyone question it, or they provide contact information for the actual copyright holder and are unable to carry the charade beyond the initial message and the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect (plus they'd catch the notice of the actual corporate legal department, who are unlikely to appreciate the impersonation).
        3y ago
Osmose 3y ago
What even is the point of emulators being legal if they have to tiptoe around the whims of companies like Nintendo? People have the right to run their software after the hardware required to run it has been discontinued, and emulators are the way to do that. That Nintendo is overly litigious because they want to make easy money rereleasing their classics on every new console generation forever doesn't mean they can stomp over that right, and emulators should be free to distribute themselves how they wish.
- wtetzner 3y ago
  Nintendo themselves use emulators.
bowsamic 3y ago
I agree. It was a totally reckless move, attracting a bunch of dangerous attention, and I would not be surprised if it causes the end of Dolphin or even RetroArch in general
indrora 3y ago
The general opinion of every emulator author I have met that has had their work subsumed into RetroArch can be summarized as "Fuck RetroArch"
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  I'd echo this sentiment. The MAME developer I know absolutely detests Retroarch as a project

dcchambers 3y ago

Have to agree with this. Nintendo is infamously litigious. I know that many people say the debate over emulators is "settled" and they are perfectly legal, but I'd rather not poke the bear and just keep things as they are. Emulators are an invaluable tool for game preservation...and I don't want to see one of, if not the best emulator ever, be forced to cease development.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Is it your position that no entity should ever try to challenge a big company's interpretation of the law, however ridiculous it may be? At that point, why even have a judicial system?
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Many people agree but don't have the resources or are risking too much if they try. If you think you can make a difference, the world will welcome you.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  It’s an expensive theory to test. I would imagine most OSS projects or their contributors are not in a financial position to get to court, let alone see the trial to a conclusion. I don’t know what to do about it, but it seems we’ve fell into aristocracy of ruling corporations.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    That's what advocate and civil rights organizations are for. I bet the likes of the EFF would be very interested in taking this case. It aligns with their incentives to take down the DMCA.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      If EFF is very interested, they can find a way to test it themselves. But here, even with EFF's help the developers would be still exposed to risk. EFF is not able to say "we'll fight this for you, pay 100% of expenses and your time's worth, and go jail instead of you if things turn really bad".
- favorited 3y ago
  Because the last time it was litigated in the US, the good guys won. But SCEA v. Bleem was over 20 years ago, and there's no guarantee that the courts won't roll back protections for emulation development. NoA is notoriously vindictive & litigious, and they have more money than the Dolphin devs. Even though Sony lost the case, the lawsuit ruined Bleem. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Nintendo will try to do the same thing to Dolphin, Ryujinx, Yuzu, etc.
  - dingledork69 3y ago
    So when a bigcorp says jump you expect everyone to just do so?
    - falcolas 3y ago
      I think the point is, you’re welcome to place yourself in Nintendos crosshairs, and we’ll cheer you on as you pit your billions against Nintendos billions, fighting for a favorable ruling. Dolphin developers apparently are not in a position to pit billions against Nintendo. Can’t blame them either.
      - dingledork69 3y ago
        [flagged]
        falcolas 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dingledork69 3y ago
        [flagged]
        LocalH 3y ago
        I mean, I support emulation fully, I believe that "it's always morally correct to pirate Nintendo", and I even believe that piracy is preservation, but come on. The Dolphin devs included the Wii keys, which was so incredibly stupid, probably one of the few completely brain dead actions that the Dolphin team has taken in the entirety of the emulator's history.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Every interaction with IP law is a total gamble and if you lose you are gone forever. It's best to take as few gambles as possible
- rcxdude 3y ago
  The main point is that it's not a good survival strategy for a hobbyist project that may draw the ire of a big company: even if the companies legal action is completely frivolous, it can easily destroy the project (basically the only option they actually have is enough public outcry to get the company to back off due to the bad publicity). Generally speaking laying low is the better option. It sucks, and it's a big problem with the current judicial system, but it is the status quo. It would take someone able and willing to put some serious resources into a risky bet to change that.
- Tams80 3y ago
  Sometimes it's just better to settle for good enough, or in this case pretty damn good. But no, some of you want the most convenient way. Only this time, that's painted a massive target on the back of what you want.
Retr0id 3y ago
While Nintendo is infamously litigious, there's speculation (without concrete evidence either way) that the recent string of DMCA takedown requests were not made by Nintendo themselves, but by someone impersonating them (as for why, who knows, some people get very caught up in the "emulation hurts game studios" line of thinking).
- wtallis 3y ago
  That seems implausible. There's only one way for the sender of a DMCA takedown notice to get in serious trouble, and that's by lying about being authorized by the copyright holder to send DMCA notices over their works: > 17 U.S. Code §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (emphasis added)
  - Retr0id 3y ago
    Submitting a DMCA takedown request does not require any authentication beyond a declaration that you're telling the truth. Anyone can do it, even over a Tor connection.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      A DMCA notice requires the aforementioned declaration under penalty of perjury, plus some other declarations that are merely required to be good faith beliefs, plus contact information for the sender. That last bit makes it quite easy to discover that a DMCA notice was faked, thus quite risky for the sender: either they provide contact information for themselves that will be repudiated by the actual copyright holder should anyone question it, or they provide contact information for the actual copyright holder and are unable to carry the charade beyond the initial message and the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect (plus they'd catch the notice of the actual corporate legal department, who are unlikely to appreciate the impersonation).
      - 3y ago

Osmose 3y ago

What even is the point of emulators being legal if they have to tiptoe around the whims of companies like Nintendo? People have the right to run their software after the hardware required to run it has been discontinued, and emulators are the way to do that. That Nintendo is overly litigious because they want to make easy money rereleasing their classics on every new console generation forever doesn't mean they can stomp over that right, and emulators should be free to distribute themselves how they wish.

wtetzner 3y ago
Nintendo themselves use emulators.

bowsamic 3y ago

I agree. It was a totally reckless move, attracting a bunch of dangerous attention, and I would not be surprised if it causes the end of Dolphin or even RetroArch in general

indrora 3y ago

The general opinion of every emulator author I have met that has had their work subsumed into RetroArch can be summarized as "Fuck RetroArch"

IntelMiner 3y ago
I'd echo this sentiment. The MAME developer I know absolutely detests Retroarch as a project