5 ms·

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 reve

by 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.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        The fair use analysis is done on the work as a whole, the Zelda game that's registered on the Copyright Office. Not the code only.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      Decompilation might be fine, but distributing the results isn't a part of reverse-engineering. Fair use is limited scope. One of the first criteria is use. Fair use is generally reserved for education, criticism, comment, and news. At best you could say this is education, but even then one of the other criteria for fair use is the amount of the work published. If you're teaching or criticizing this code, the whole codebase is probably too much. Some snippets would be fine like you would see in code reviews or reviews of books and such.
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B Says that its totally not legal to distribute decompiled code, or indeed: > uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright. If it was legal, there would be loads of decompiled binaries floating around for windows, Adobe, autodesk and any number of other expensive bits of software.
- 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]

by chungy 3y ago

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.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        The fair use analysis is done on the work as a whole, the Zelda game that's registered on the Copyright Office. Not the code only.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    Decompilation might be fine, but distributing the results isn't a part of reverse-engineering. Fair use is limited scope. One of the first criteria is use. Fair use is generally reserved for education, criticism, comment, and news. At best you could say this is education, but even then one of the other criteria for fair use is the amount of the work published. If you're teaching or criticizing this code, the whole codebase is probably too much. Some snippets would be fine like you would see in code reviews or reviews of books and such.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B Says that its totally not legal to distribute decompiled code, or indeed: > uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright. If it was legal, there would be loads of decompiled binaries floating around for windows, Adobe, autodesk and any number of other expensive bits of software.
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]