6 ms·

> 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 c

by 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
  [deleted]
vore 3y ago
If I took images from the game and converted them to WebPs then distributed them, that is still copyright infringement, even though those are not the images Nintendo created. Likewise, if you do the same with machine code to reconstructed code, that's the same in principle.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Why is it always the same on every thread of this type? Perhaps I can grab the code segments of a Windows ISO, apply a series of mechanical transformations, and proceed to call it Freedows and freely distribute it as my own? I am having trouble understanding the thought processes that lead to these conclusions. Too much ChatGPT? By this logic copyright protection on software would be meaningless. The GPL would be meaningless. I could grab any program in the world, "translate it" to my favorite language-du-jour, and call it my own.. Goodbye viral license requirements...
- hoten 3y ago
  These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly. It's just used as a rubric. The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. That's the idea, at least. Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work. Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    > These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly That is the definition of decompilation. What are they using as input, if not the "distributed game binary"? > The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. This is just claiming the consequent. The output of my magical code transformation method is also not Microsoft's. > Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work. Yet that is exactly what decompilation is... What distinction are you trying to make here? If I translate it to a different language, it is OK? That's as absurd as it gets and still basically strip all software from copyright. > Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game? For the record... yes.
  - mjg59 3y ago
    They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code. At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status. This code is then cleaned up such that it compiles and functions and variables are given sensible names. This is, arguably, a creative endeavour, but it's also clearly a derivative work of the original binary and so is still controlled by copyright law. The decompilation itself may or may not be a copyright violation - that's likely to vary depending on jurisdiction. If someone in a jurisdiction where it's legal were to write a description of the behaviour of the decompiled code and if someone else were to implement a codebase that happened to compile to the same original binary code then there's an argument that no infringement occurred (a functional description of the behaviour of a work is potentially not derivative of that work, and re-implementing the code based on that description is then not constrained by the original copyright), but that's not what happened here. I don't like that this is the case, but let's take it to a logical conclusion - if I take an interpreted language with a bytecode compiler, I can typically decompile it to something almost 100% identical to the original code (I'd lose comments and maybe variable names, but that depends on the language). Does this mean I can take copyrighted Python code, run it through the interpreter, dump the state, decompile it, and have an independent work not subject to the original license?
Salgat 3y ago
Is a translation of a book not also protected under the original copyright? This is just a human readable form of the original binary.
bitwize 3y ago
It is, however, what is known in copyright as a "derived work", meaning that it is under the same copyright with the same owner as the original work. It's Nintendo's code. Distributing it without permission is violating copyright.

by pjerem 3y ago

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
[deleted]

vore 3y ago

If I took images from the game and converted them to WebPs then distributed them, that is still copyright infringement, even though those are not the images Nintendo created. Likewise, if you do the same with machine code to reconstructed code, that's the same in principle.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

Why is it always the same on every thread of this type? Perhaps I can grab the code segments of a Windows ISO, apply a series of mechanical transformations, and proceed to call it Freedows and freely distribute it as my own? I am having trouble understanding the thought processes that lead to these conclusions. Too much ChatGPT? By this logic copyright protection on software would be meaningless. The GPL would be meaningless. I could grab any program in the world, "translate it" to my favorite language-du-jour, and call it my own.. Goodbye viral license requirements...

hoten 3y ago
These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly. It's just used as a rubric. The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. That's the idea, at least. Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work. Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  > These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly That is the definition of decompilation. What are they using as input, if not the "distributed game binary"? > The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. This is just claiming the consequent. The output of my magical code transformation method is also not Microsoft's. > Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work. Yet that is exactly what decompilation is... What distinction are you trying to make here? If I translate it to a different language, it is OK? That's as absurd as it gets and still basically strip all software from copyright. > Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game? For the record... yes.
- mjg59 3y ago
  They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code. At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status. This code is then cleaned up such that it compiles and functions and variables are given sensible names. This is, arguably, a creative endeavour, but it's also clearly a derivative work of the original binary and so is still controlled by copyright law. The decompilation itself may or may not be a copyright violation - that's likely to vary depending on jurisdiction. If someone in a jurisdiction where it's legal were to write a description of the behaviour of the decompiled code and if someone else were to implement a codebase that happened to compile to the same original binary code then there's an argument that no infringement occurred (a functional description of the behaviour of a work is potentially not derivative of that work, and re-implementing the code based on that description is then not constrained by the original copyright), but that's not what happened here. I don't like that this is the case, but let's take it to a logical conclusion - if I take an interpreted language with a bytecode compiler, I can typically decompile it to something almost 100% identical to the original code (I'd lose comments and maybe variable names, but that depends on the language). Does this mean I can take copyrighted Python code, run it through the interpreter, dump the state, decompile it, and have an independent work not subject to the original license?

Salgat 3y ago

Is a translation of a book not also protected under the original copyright? This is just a human readable form of the original binary.

bitwize 3y ago

It is, however, what is known in copyright as a "derived work", meaning that it is under the same copyright with the same owner as the original work. It's Nintendo's code. Distributing it without permission is violating copyright.