4 ms·

Is it that clear cut? It sounds to me like the interoperability clause would apply: > (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a perso

Is it that clear cut? It sounds to me like the interoperability clause would apply: > (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 Isn't this exactly what Dolphin is doing? Isn't Dolphin an independently created computer program providing PC interoperability with Switch games?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has talked repeatedly about how the Interoperability exception is significantly weaker in context than it appears. The biggest problem, as they summarize it, is that “Any interoperable program you created as a result of the reverse engineering is non-infringing.” Aka, your reverse-engineered DVD player software for Linux cannot break TPMs. Your emulator can’t break TPMs. Etc. It only protects breaking TPMs to develop software that does not break TPMs. Surprise, that’s almost useless. In which case, all it does is say that the Dolphin developers can’t be sued for breaking TPMs to develop Dolphin, at least under the DMCA. But they can still be sued if they distribute any TPM-breaking tools. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq