8 ms·

CnD coming ASAP or does this kind of thing get a pass?

minimaxir 3y ago
Many Nintendo games (including Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) have been decompiled and have not been attacked by the Nintendo Ninjas: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot https://github.com/zeldaret/oot The more pressing legal concern here is the use of game assets, which these decompilations work around by requiring the user to provide a ROM to extract them first.
- vore 3y ago
  I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.
  - chungy 3y ago
    It's nearly trivial to get a file copy of the game disc if you own a Wii and the game. No copyright infringement needed to get the assets. Even still, the reverse engineering part to put the executable code into C++ is definitely copyright infringement.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Reverse engineering isn't copyright infringement. Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.
      - ska 3y ago
        > Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however. Probably not if it actually reverse engineered (with a firewall) but that's not what they are doing (i.e. decompilation isn't' reverse engineering)
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        Decompilation is an essential (although not mandatory for some cases) part of reverse-engineering. As for decompilation projects that have only reconstructed source code and no game media assets, it's probably fair use.
        ska 3y ago
        It’s an often used tool, sure , but for legal protection of reverse engg, your implementation side is firewalled from all of that. It's not likely to be fair use to distribute, fwiw.
        vore 3y ago
        It is not fair use in itself: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyrights/Copyright-Fairuse.htm https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyr... Decompiling object code produces an approximation of the original source code. Merely making this rough copy would usually violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights, even if the person who decompiled the code only used it as a preliminary step in making another work. The only reason anyone believes this is fair use is because the copyright holders have chosen not to enforce it.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It is more likely to be fair use in this specific instance, as the copyrighted work to which the analysis is applied to is the whole game, not the code itself. A big part of fair use analysis is in the effect on the market for the original work. If people have to obtain a copy to even use the project in any interactable way, the effect is either none (if we suppose every user of the project gets their original copy illegaly) or positive/benefitial to the copyright holder (if it makes those users actually buy legit copies)
        charcircuit 3y ago
        The game is a copyrighted work, but so is the source code. The compiled code is a derivative work, and so is the decompiled code. Nintendo is not selling the source code, so arguing about sales in the market does not makes sense.
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating, therefore you are copying (whether for your personal enjoyment or not) the works of the author without permission. There are a series of well documented exceptions... normally found in copyright law. (And this most definitely does not fall into one of them).
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        pama 3y ago
        There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission. If I use my neurons to read and create an exact copy I can retell to myself, or I write it on pen and paper, or I type it on a personal computer, or I read it out loud, or read it out loud and record it for myself I don’t violate anything. Otherwise one would never be able to play copyrighted sheet music on a digital piano say. Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law.
        AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        > There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission. Actually there is in many jurisdictions of the world, including mine (France). There are some exceptions enshrined in copyright law, for which we actually pay a tax. But this is besides the point. It's not even about the personal copies you make from your legally-obtained original copy on the first place. It's about where you obtained that initial copy from. Most definitely not legally from the author, if he is not authorizing RE. > Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law. What other agreements does it violate? It is copyright law the only thing that puts a restriction between you and doing whatever the fsck you want with that code. There is a reason the RE exceptions are enshrined in copyright law...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - pjerem 3y ago
    > Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.
    - bri3d 3y ago
      The decompiled code is a 1:1 translation, so it’s a derivative work. You can’t distribute a translated book without an agreement with the copyright owner, even if the translator contributed original creative work on top. The analogy is literally 1:1.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      > This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable. That doesn't make it not copyright infringement. As long as it's based on the same executable, that's a derivative work. In the same way if I were to recreate Star Wars A New Hope with new actors and new sets. If I were to play a cover of Micheal Jackson's Thriller with new instruments and new voices. That's why clean-room design is a thing. To recreate the same function not based off the copyrighted executable, but rather its interactions with the user, other programs, and files. Interactions that aren't copyrightable.
      - qwery 3y ago
        You could do a clean-room implementation[0] of Michael Jackson's Thriller and the rights holders could still take you to court and have a good shot at winning. You could have never heard Thriller, come up with an obvious[1] melodic phrasing that some lawyers reckon sounds close enough and still get sued. Of course, none of that makes it copyright infringement, only the (would-be) judge does. [0] The product of which is roughly equivalent to a cover [1] obvious to a musician or composer
      - deleted 3y ago
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    There are fair use carveouts for reverse engineering code to, for example, make it usable on different platforms. I don’t believe this kind of decompile project has ever had its day in court and the laws are written in such a way that the outcome is at least somewhat likely to be skewed in favor of reverse engineering. Nintendo may be avoiding bringing suit because they don’t think they could win or that the judgement might make expanded rights explicit encouraging more of this kind of thing. EFF on the topic https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
    - chungy 3y ago
      It's even possible that Nintendo evaluates the harm of these projects to be rather lower compared to distributing the complete games themselves. Even though it's not based in any legal reality, the projects' firewall of "You must provide art assets from your own copy of the game" may suffice to keep the lawyers away. I know, Nintendo will litigate anyone for any reason, but it is possible for a company to look away when these measures are taken.
      - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
        Yeah, seems most likely. In the past, they've explicitly taken down distributions of things like the SM64 PC port, but left the decompilation. Companies don't have to C&D. If something poses very little financial danger, but taking it down presents significant risk of PR harm, it's not worth it. The C&D would cost more than it would save, so it makes no business sense. Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular.
        chungy 3y ago
        > Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular. If talking about AM2R, it posed a rather credible threat against the success of the official Metroid 2 remake (ignoring the fact that AM2R is of much higher quality anyway). Plus it contained ripped sprites from Zero Mission, Fusion, and incorporated all of the characters and enemies that Nintendo owns. You can't just make your own Lord of the Rings or Star Wars without infringing the copyright of the original work. Same with fan remakes.
  - qwery 3y ago
    I obviously don't speak for who you replied to, but I just wanted to point out that they made no claim about copyright.
    - vore 3y ago
      Legal concern = copyright infringement. What other legal concerns are there in this scenario?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Many Nintendo games (including Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) have been decompiled and have not been attacked by the Nintendo Ninjas: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot https://github.com/zeldaret/oot The more pressing legal concern here is the use of game assets, which these decompilations work around by requiring the user to provide a ROM to extract them first.

vore 3y ago
I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.
- chungy 3y ago
  It's nearly trivial to get a file copy of the game disc if you own a Wii and the game. No copyright infringement needed to get the assets. Even still, the reverse engineering part to put the executable code into C++ is definitely copyright infringement.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Reverse engineering isn't copyright infringement. Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.
    - ska 3y ago
      > Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however. Probably not if it actually reverse engineered (with a firewall) but that's not what they are doing (i.e. decompilation isn't' reverse engineering)
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        Decompilation is an essential (although not mandatory for some cases) part of reverse-engineering. As for decompilation projects that have only reconstructed source code and no game media assets, it's probably fair use.
        ska 3y ago
        It’s an often used tool, sure , but for legal protection of reverse engg, your implementation side is firewalled from all of that. It's not likely to be fair use to distribute, fwiw.
        vore 3y ago
        It is not fair use in itself: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyrights/Copyright-Fairuse.htm https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyr... Decompiling object code produces an approximation of the original source code. Merely making this rough copy would usually violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights, even if the person who decompiled the code only used it as a preliminary step in making another work. The only reason anyone believes this is fair use is because the copyright holders have chosen not to enforce it.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It is more likely to be fair use in this specific instance, as the copyrighted work to which the analysis is applied to is the whole game, not the code itself. A big part of fair use analysis is in the effect on the market for the original work. If people have to obtain a copy to even use the project in any interactable way, the effect is either none (if we suppose every user of the project gets their original copy illegaly) or positive/benefitial to the copyright holder (if it makes those users actually buy legit copies)
        charcircuit 3y ago
        The game is a copyrighted work, but so is the source code. The compiled code is a derivative work, and so is the decompiled code. Nintendo is not selling the source code, so arguing about sales in the market does not makes sense.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating, therefore you are copying (whether for your personal enjoyment or not) the works of the author without permission. There are a series of well documented exceptions... normally found in copyright law. (And this most definitely does not fall into one of them).
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - pama 3y ago
        There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission. If I use my neurons to read and create an exact copy I can retell to myself, or I write it on pen and paper, or I type it on a personal computer, or I read it out loud, or read it out loud and record it for myself I don’t violate anything. Otherwise one would never be able to play copyrighted sheet music on a digital piano say. Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law.
        AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        > There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission. Actually there is in many jurisdictions of the world, including mine (France). There are some exceptions enshrined in copyright law, for which we actually pay a tax. But this is besides the point. It's not even about the personal copies you make from your legally-obtained original copy on the first place. It's about where you obtained that initial copy from. Most definitely not legally from the author, if he is not authorizing RE. > Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law. What other agreements does it violate? It is copyright law the only thing that puts a restriction between you and doing whatever the fsck you want with that code. There is a reason the RE exceptions are enshrined in copyright law...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pjerem 3y ago
  > Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.
  - bri3d 3y ago
    The decompiled code is a 1:1 translation, so it’s a derivative work. You can’t distribute a translated book without an agreement with the copyright owner, even if the translator contributed original creative work on top. The analogy is literally 1:1.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    > This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable. That doesn't make it not copyright infringement. As long as it's based on the same executable, that's a derivative work. In the same way if I were to recreate Star Wars A New Hope with new actors and new sets. If I were to play a cover of Micheal Jackson's Thriller with new instruments and new voices. That's why clean-room design is a thing. To recreate the same function not based off the copyrighted executable, but rather its interactions with the user, other programs, and files. Interactions that aren't copyrightable.
    - qwery 3y ago
      You could do a clean-room implementation[0] of Michael Jackson's Thriller and the rights holders could still take you to court and have a good shot at winning. You could have never heard Thriller, come up with an obvious[1] melodic phrasing that some lawyers reckon sounds close enough and still get sued. Of course, none of that makes it copyright infringement, only the (would-be) judge does. [0] The product of which is roughly equivalent to a cover [1] obvious to a musician or composer
    - deleted 3y ago
- colechristensen 3y ago
  There are fair use carveouts for reverse engineering code to, for example, make it usable on different platforms. I don’t believe this kind of decompile project has ever had its day in court and the laws are written in such a way that the outcome is at least somewhat likely to be skewed in favor of reverse engineering. Nintendo may be avoiding bringing suit because they don’t think they could win or that the judgement might make expanded rights explicit encouraging more of this kind of thing. EFF on the topic https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
  - chungy 3y ago
    It's even possible that Nintendo evaluates the harm of these projects to be rather lower compared to distributing the complete games themselves. Even though it's not based in any legal reality, the projects' firewall of "You must provide art assets from your own copy of the game" may suffice to keep the lawyers away. I know, Nintendo will litigate anyone for any reason, but it is possible for a company to look away when these measures are taken.
    - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
      Yeah, seems most likely. In the past, they've explicitly taken down distributions of things like the SM64 PC port, but left the decompilation. Companies don't have to C&D. If something poses very little financial danger, but taking it down presents significant risk of PR harm, it's not worth it. The C&D would cost more than it would save, so it makes no business sense. Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular.
      - chungy 3y ago
        > Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular. If talking about AM2R, it posed a rather credible threat against the success of the official Metroid 2 remake (ignoring the fact that AM2R is of much higher quality anyway). Plus it contained ripped sprites from Zero Mission, Fusion, and incorporated all of the characters and enemies that Nintendo owns. You can't just make your own Lord of the Rings or Star Wars without infringing the copyright of the original work. Same with fan remakes.
- qwery 3y ago
  I obviously don't speak for who you replied to, but I just wanted to point out that they made no claim about copyright.
  - vore 3y ago
    Legal concern = copyright infringement. What other legal concerns are there in this scenario?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]