3 ms·
> If it can play disc images with copy protection > Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys I don't believe it does. Wii U emulator CEMU requires them to bo
by smoldesu 3y ago
> If it can play disc images with copy protection
> Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys
I don't believe it does. Wii U emulator CEMU requires them to boot, and Citra the 3DS emulator also requires them. The Wii seems to have no copy protection to speak of, besides it's rudimentary disk check/hashing routine. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though.
> the fair use won because Corellium successfully argued there was no way that their product could impact Apple in any substantial way regarding security research
> Nintendo easily has a case that emulation causes substantial financial and business harm
So did Sony. Bleem even used screenshots of their official, licensed games to advertise their commercial alternative to owning a Playstation, and a judge deemed it lawful: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=11837224078052556056&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=1183722407805...
From the appeal:
> To the extent Bleem merely approximates what the PlayStation games look like, by generating screen shots through a process of degrading a computer image, it is simply creating a simulation. If Bleem insists on generating simulated approximations of Sony's games, there is no need for Bleem to use Sony's copyrighted material whatsoever.
Again - there is still ambiguity in these rulings, especially for modern console emulators. It's easy to scare Steam into taking this down since Valve doesn't want to take the fall for emulators. That being said, a true cease-and-desist scenario for Dolphin is likely unlawful, given the precedent and context.
Edit in response to your edit: Citra's developer is right - this is brazen. But it's also a legal can of worms Nintendo cannot guarantee a win on. Their claim is that it violates the Copyright Act, which they would then have to defend against the DMCA amendments that give explicit protections to many classes of usage. If "the key" is their objection, Nintendo's copyright complaint will be about as effective as the DeCSS moratorium.
- monocasa 3y ago> I don't believe it does. The aes keys checked in to their GitHub are linked elsewhere in this comment section.
- evandale 3y agoI don't understand how private keys are any different from secret ingredients. You can't stop me from cracking the KFC recipe and if I successfully did it and published the recipe can KFC come after me? What if KFC was sloppy and dropped the recipe on the floor and I found it and published that? To me the private key is just a secret blend of bits to make the output bits look exactly the way you'd expect. If Nintendo can't keep their private keys private isn't that their problem? Why does someone else have the responsibility to keep Nintendo's key private if they discover it?
- gjsman-1000 3y agoDMCA Section 1201 is your answer. Those keys are primarily used for circumventing “technological protection measures” on software. That’s not legal even for otherwise legal uses which is why the Section is morally awful. What you do could be completely legal otherwise, but if it involves circumventing these “TPMs” of which encryption keys are an important part of, you’re screwed. An emulator, meanwhile, only mimics hardware which is considered legal. An example: It is completely legal to implement the DVD specification; but brute-forcing the keys to decrypt DVDs because you don’t have a license is not. The same applies to AACS, which protects Blu-ray Discs. It’s actually published publicly - you can just go download the spec for that copy protection right now. But getting a legal, unique device key will require contracts. Stupid? Yes, but that’s where the law is drawn right now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]