3 ms·

I don't think it's that simple. For one thing emulation has been ruled legal in the US. By all reports Nintendo had an unusually strong case against Yuzu becaus

by paol 3y ago

I don't think it's that simple. For one thing emulation has been ruled legal in the US. By all reports Nintendo had an unusually strong case against Yuzu because the developers behind it didn't sufficiently distance themselves from piracy uses - the opposite if anything. On the practical side, the fact that the developers were a for profit company also made Nintendo's job much easier. Taking down a more legally careful, decentralized open source project should prove harder.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> For one thing emulation has been ruled legal in the US. By Emulation was; breaking cryptographic locks under the DMCA never was. In addition, most of the pro-emulation lawsuits were decided before the relevant DMCA sections even came into effect (e.g. Bleem), and are quite possibly already obsolete.
- 1231232131231 3y ago
  What if it was forked and the code that broke DRM was separated from the codebase, preferably as a library (dll/lib)?
  - chaorace 3y ago
    In order to isolate one part of the software as "the bad bits", you need either clear specific language in the law or a clearly established relevant legal precedent. Neither of these things currently exist in the context of DMCA 1201. If you're curious, here's the most relevant parts of the text: > No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;[...] > As used in this subsection—[...]a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. FYI: I am not a lawyer, but you can listen to a lawyer explain the above at the following link https://youtu.be/wROQUZDCIMI?t=868 https://youtu.be/wROQUZDCIMI?t=868
  - colinsane 3y ago
    assuming you aren't a defendant in the above case, then the only ruling which would affect someone who wants to do this is (4): > Developing or distributing software, including Yuzu, that in its ordinary course functions only when cryptographic keys are integrated without authorization, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [...] so, first reading, no: just taking Yuzu and splitting out the DRM stuff isn't legal if Yuzu still _depends_ on that DRM to function. you could maybe come up with some thing where you do full Switch emulation, with the code having literally zero concept of DRM/cryptography, and can only play homebrew games. do that and some other party would likely come around and do the (likely illegal) work to convert Switch games into a format your emulator understands. quite a bit like MAME cores, really. fun speculating about how to bypass the spirit of this ruling though, huh? IMO if you actually want to do this don't bother with the roundabout. just do it directly and don't incorporate yourself in a state that cares about DMCA like a dumbass, and strictly distance your operations from your legal identity if you live under such a repressive regime.
flykespice 3y ago
> Taking down a more legally careful, decentralized open source project should prove harder. Oh sweetheart, have you learnt about intimidation by legal fees? Doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, not many can bank to take against dedicated Nintendo legal team.
- hnfong 3y ago
  It's actually much harder for corporations to sue you if all they have on you is a github username. But once you start taking "donations" and run the project like a business with non-trivial revenue, they can take you down easily by following the money trail.

by paol 3y ago

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> For one thing emulation has been ruled legal in the US. By Emulation was; breaking cryptographic locks under the DMCA never was. In addition, most of the pro-emulation lawsuits were decided before the relevant DMCA sections even came into effect (e.g. Bleem), and are quite possibly already obsolete.

1231232131231 3y ago
What if it was forked and the code that broke DRM was separated from the codebase, preferably as a library (dll/lib)?
- chaorace 3y ago
  In order to isolate one part of the software as "the bad bits", you need either clear specific language in the law or a clearly established relevant legal precedent. Neither of these things currently exist in the context of DMCA 1201. If you're curious, here's the most relevant parts of the text: > No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;[...] > As used in this subsection—[...]a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. FYI: I am not a lawyer, but you can listen to a lawyer explain the above at the following link https://youtu.be/wROQUZDCIMI?t=868 https://youtu.be/wROQUZDCIMI?t=868
- colinsane 3y ago
  assuming you aren't a defendant in the above case, then the only ruling which would affect someone who wants to do this is (4): > Developing or distributing software, including Yuzu, that in its ordinary course functions only when cryptographic keys are integrated without authorization, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [...] so, first reading, no: just taking Yuzu and splitting out the DRM stuff isn't legal if Yuzu still _depends_ on that DRM to function. you could maybe come up with some thing where you do full Switch emulation, with the code having literally zero concept of DRM/cryptography, and can only play homebrew games. do that and some other party would likely come around and do the (likely illegal) work to convert Switch games into a format your emulator understands. quite a bit like MAME cores, really. fun speculating about how to bypass the spirit of this ruling though, huh? IMO if you actually want to do this don't bother with the roundabout. just do it directly and don't incorporate yourself in a state that cares about DMCA like a dumbass, and strictly distance your operations from your legal identity if you live under such a repressive regime.

flykespice 3y ago

> Taking down a more legally careful, decentralized open source project should prove harder. Oh sweetheart, have you learnt about intimidation by legal fees? Doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, not many can bank to take against dedicated Nintendo legal team.

hnfong 3y ago
It's actually much harder for corporations to sue you if all they have on you is a github username. But once you start taking "donations" and run the project like a business with non-trivial revenue, they can take you down easily by following the money trail.