30 ms·

What ever exactly happened, ultimately this is just another corporation trying to disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property, in specific vid

What ever exactly happened, ultimately this is just another corporation trying to disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property, in specific video games. Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some company located on an island on the other side of the world should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my possession. It's just ludicrous behavior from a group of power-hungry megalomaniacs. This is why it's important to claw back as much ownership in that space as possible. If you want things to move in the right direction, you should sign https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci if you're an EU citizen, or support them in any other way if you're not. This stuff is important and will ultimately decide whether we own things in our life or not, as increasingly more items have critical features that are anchored in the digital world. Without stuff like that we will become digital paupers.

wilsonnb3 2y ago
> Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some company located on an island on the other side of the world Why does the location of the company matter? They have branches in america and Europe even if it does somehow matter. > should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my possession You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but this is just lazy.
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  If it was really about IP, they wouldn’t be going after emulators, they’d be going after rom distributors. It’s not like there’s some secret special industry secret aspect to their 8 year old hardware. There’s IP protections and then there’s whatever this is.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    It's just a matter of strategy— their goal is to get people to buy the game who might otherwise use an emulated copy. They aren't doing it for the principle— It's a sale in their pocket and avoids downward pressure on their price from cheaper (free) sources. Agree with their actions or not, attacking the tiny mechanism that makes all roms useful is far more efficient than trying to whack-a-mole with a bazillion ROM sources forever. Even intimidating ROM sites out of existence only means they'll get distributed elsewhere. It's much harder to run an open source dev project in secret than it is to seed a huge library of ROMS over BT.
- pdntspa 2y ago
  > You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property Yes you can, if you are someplace out of reach of the law.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  > You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but this is just lazy. But IP law says nothing about interaction with already-existing copies. This just isn't about copyright at all.
  - jachee 2y ago
    Okay, so how do you plug a proprietary Switch cart into a PC to play your “already-existing copy” on an emulator?
    - devmor 2y ago
      There have been tools built to do this, which Nintendo abused IP law to shut down.
      - sim7c00 2y ago
        isnt this basically piracy enabling technology? its good n all that people take the stance they will only use it for their legitimately owned copies but thats not the reality. people dump stuff and spread it around, and others play illegal copies. its much more rare for people to use such tech legitimately than the other clearly illegal case...
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        Ope, we'd better ban CD burners, Xerox machines, 3D printers, EPROM burners, VCRs, and DAT tape decks because they're pIrAcY eNaBlInG tEcHnOlOgY!!!!!! That's not how any of this works.
        roywiggins 2y ago
        It's how the DMCA works though, if the media has any DRM on it.
- necovek 2y ago
  "Intellectual property" is a meaningless term: GP is specifically referring to rules dictated by copyright laws, which generally allow one to do whatever they please with their "copy" for the most part (as long as they don't hurt the copyright holder's business through a couple of well defined "protections"). Copyright laws were established when it became cheap to "copy" creative works, so creativity would continue to be stimulated by guaranteeing rewards for a set time (idea was not to guarantee getting filthy rich, just to make sure creation happens by keeping the authors fairly compensated). Digital "sales" are attempts to trick customers into thinking they are buying a copy when they are only getting a license, but this is unrelated to Nintendo killing emulators with an army of lawyers.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kibwen 2y ago
      > Only if you try to package it and sell it en masse. Ryujinx wasn't being sold, it was being given away for free. > Someone else distributed a tool that can be argued as used to bypass copyright By this logic your entire computer is a tool to bypass copyright. An emulator is just a virtual machine, it doesn't contain any games or other copyrighted material. They are legal, despite Nintendo's mafioso scare tactics.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        "packaged and distributed en masses" is you want to be nitpicky. I don't get to get away with dealing illegal substances just because I give it away for free. Money simply puts a target on my back. >your entire computer is a tool to bypass copyright Reducto ad absurdum doesn't really work here. There are specific scopes and use cases taken into consideration when considering what tools or works are bypassing copyright. I cant claim Yuzu is the same as VMware in their use cases (especially when VMware had to work with Microsoft to have that be allowed. And why it can't legally distribute Mac OS Tom's freely).
- altruios 2y ago
  I can run legally an mp3 through a calculator. No one can dictate otherwise - it's my machine, and purchased media to do with as I (privately) please. This does not interfere with copyright. To legislate otherwise would be insane - as that would effectively legislate your ability to calculate. This argument extends to any purchased media, to any program.
  - wilsonnb3 2y ago
    If your mp3 is copy protected and your calculator bypasses that copy protection, it is in fact illegal (in the US)
    - altruios 2y ago
      Such a translation would be "format shifting" which is protected under US/UK law (IANAL).
      - wilsonnb3 2y ago
        I think you are correct in the case of an actual MP3 file and calculator. I was thinking they were metaphorical.
        altruios 2y ago
        Not just a mp3 file. any media you have purchased can be format shifted by you for archive/personal purposes. regardless of DRM/copy protections. What is illegal is redistribution (thus the copyright). Again: ianal. But this is kind of a fundamental right. If you own something, it's yours to do with privately as you wish. If you don't own the copyright, then you can't redistribute.
        zerocrates 2y ago
        The DMCA makes breaking DRM illegal, even when done for fair use purposes, if it doesn't fall into a small number of tightly-defined exceptions. And they can go after tools that enable people to do this, as well (think of DeCSS for example).
- ysofunny 2y ago
  IP is an obsolete idea of a bygone century it arose from a legitimate answer to material scarcity, but it's nonesense in the digital space people who advocate for IP and DRM and all such thing are in the end advocating for scarcity.
  - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
    What do you say to people who want to stop using Open Source software licences and instead use 'Fair Source' licences intended to prevent cloud companies monetising the works of others? For instance, here's discussion about a blog post titled So you want to compete with or replace open source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40993787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40993787 With no copyright, it would be akin to using permissive BSD-style licensing, which is by no means everyone's preference.
    - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
      Good for them. Free Software is much too easy to abuse, and we need something that provides additional protections.
      - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
        Sounds like you believe copyright can serve a legitimate purpose then. I presume you don't hold that IP is an obsolete idea of a bygone century, as ysofunny put it.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    I don't agree with them, but i haven't seen the argument being pro scarcity. To steelman it, the argument is that without these protections the incentive to create is lower so we actually will have more scarcity
    - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
      Without the ability to use asbestos, the incentive to build houses is lower, so we actually will have less houses.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  Emulating consoles that are no longer sold makes some sense. Emulating a console that already exists just feels wrong. Even if technically in the right. And it's hard to ignore, even when the emulator is in the right, 100% legal, 99.99% of people will simply be pirating their roms.
  - craftkiller 2y ago
    Well if we're going to dive into morality, requiring me to produce additional pollution and e-waste to run your program when I have a perfectly capable turing machine already is unconscionable. Nintendo: Put your games on steam. Let me buy them without killing the planet. Apple: License your damn operating system for running on non-apple hardware. Hell, just let me legally run it in an virtual machine so I can test my scripts on your OS without killing the planet.
    - mightyham 2y ago
      Nintendo's primary competitive advantage in the gaming space is it's expertise in hardware and tight integration of self-published games. Nintendo would have to fundamentally change it's business model and alter the design of their games (and consequently the unique appeal of them) in order to fit your demand. You are right about Apple though, simply allowing people to install their OS on other hardware for personal use would not impact their market strategy in any significant way.
      - craftkiller 2y ago
        I'd argue the success of the switch emulators proves their games can be successful without changes in the PC space. I'd certainly agree with you when it came to Wii-era games since that had the unusual controller[0] but the switch is a pretty standard controller. [0] Which they could have sold as first-party PC accessories, further capitalizing on the PC market
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
- ls612 2y ago
  Back before the computer era it was the case that once you bought a product the IP rights to it were extinguished and you could do whatever you wanted with it except distribute copies. The end of that combined with ubiquitous internet and decent TPMs that aren’t riddled with vulnerabilities effectively heralds the end of private property, or at least private property that involves electricity in its function.
- joquarky 2y ago
  IP is unnatural. No other arguments needed
cubefox 2y ago
> ultimately this is just another corporation trying to disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property, in specific video games. Is it reasonable to assume the majority of Ryujinx users merely emulate Switch games they legally own? That only a minority uses the emulator to play pirated Switch games?
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  I don’t know why you are being downvoted. Of course emulators are being used to play pirated games.
  - cheeze 2y ago
    Yeah. It's a bummer because I actually own the games and just want to play them at 4k60 rather than on the weak HW of the Switch. But I understand why Nintendo would target emulators of a _current gen console_. To say that this is solely an attack on law abiding folks who own the game is... being willfully ignorant because you don't want to accept that a large percentage of installs are doing so for piracy.
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      Of course it's not solely an attack on law abiding folks who own the game. But is is an attack on them nonetheless. Its also an attack on open source, software freedom, and digital preservation. Further, assuming there were legal threats involved, its an abuse of the legal system to harass open source developers working on perfectly legal software. Emulators are also direct competition to Nintendo's hardware, so you could see this as an anti-competitive move as well. There are lots of problems with this, and they're only mostly Nintendo's fault.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        It's also important to remember that emulators exist without ROMs. All the code that's in an emulator isn't infringing on any Nintendo's IP -- it's re-implementing Nintendo's hardware interface. That it can be used to make piracy easier is unfortunately, but isn't really the emulator developers' concern, given... There are substantial, legal, non-infringing uses. In most legal jurisdictions, thankfully you can't ban something useful just because it might be used to commit a crime.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Apple doesn’t need any laws to enforce the following: - you can’t pirate App Store IAP - you can’t pirate Apple News - you can’t pirate Apple Arcade - you can’t pirate iCloud storage and you can’t upgrade phone storage space from anyone but Apple, and therefore the amount of data you can practicably store in the iOS ecosystem - it’s impracticable to pirate App Store apps Okay, that’s like 90% of Apple services revenue. Is Apple the only company allowed to make money? That’s kind of what your position is: “the only permissible limitations are the ones that cannot be surmounted technologically.” Why should the law be toothless in copyright protections, but not in other things? Because that is a Pro Apple position in disguise.
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  The law should have teeth and should say that DRM is actually illegal, or at the very least that circumventing it is legal. No matter how ludicrously long Disney manages to get copyright terms extended to, copyright does still expire, and there are even other exceptions such accessibility and military and emergency usage that trump copyright. But encryption never expires and does not care if it would save someones life to use some product in some unusual situation, so, it should either be illegal to sell an encrypted audiobook that can never be decrypted even 100 years later when it is public domain, or at the very least, if it is to be legal to produce such a thing, then the trade-off is it is at least legal for anyone else to try to overcome it. How could drm risk anyone's life? I don't know but it isn't just protecting a movie from playing, it's baked into the hardware of devices and makes the entire device non-functional, like HDCP making a display not-display. Maybe a pdf has critical emergency information like how to sanitize water during an natural disater or war, or identify if a berry is safe or poisonous, but the only pdf you have happened to come from an expensive college course so you can't read it. Contrived examples will always sound contrived and dismissable but no particular example matters. The principle holds even without any examples. If a tv can fail to tv, then forget about if tvs are important, what matters is a tool can be arbitrarily and artificially rendered non-functional. The law should absolutely have teeth, but it should say something other than what it currently does, and have the teeth to enforce that.
  - deleted 2y ago
Narhem 2y ago
Could be an organization issue, when I think of a Nintendo Switch it should be organized under Bh not Gh. Especially with an emulator which doesn’t get updates from Nintendo.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property It's a nice utopic view, but I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the games emulated are also owned by the user. I'd be surprised if more than half the people using emulators ever owned a Switch to begin with. >Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some company located on an island on the other side of the world should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my possession. They don't really. If you made Ryujinx or Yuzu and kept it to yourself and maybe a few close friends, they'd never know nor care. But things get complicated when you post it on the public internet. >This is why it's important to claw back as much ownership in that space as possible. If you want things to move in the right direction, you should sign https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci if you're an EU citizen, or support them in any other way if you're not. I dont think even the EU wants to touch the matter of emulation. Precisely because they may discover many emulator users are pirates.
ChrisRR 2y ago
> purchased property Remember the distinction here is that the property is the licence to use the software, not a physical item. It confuses the discussion of what can and can't be done

wilsonnb3 2y ago

> Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some company located on an island on the other side of the world Why does the location of the company matter? They have branches in america and Europe even if it does somehow matter. > should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my possession You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but this is just lazy.

dclowd9901 2y ago
If it was really about IP, they wouldn’t be going after emulators, they’d be going after rom distributors. It’s not like there’s some secret special industry secret aspect to their 8 year old hardware. There’s IP protections and then there’s whatever this is.
- chefandy 2y ago
  It's just a matter of strategy— their goal is to get people to buy the game who might otherwise use an emulated copy. They aren't doing it for the principle— It's a sale in their pocket and avoids downward pressure on their price from cheaper (free) sources. Agree with their actions or not, attacking the tiny mechanism that makes all roms useful is far more efficient than trying to whack-a-mole with a bazillion ROM sources forever. Even intimidating ROM sites out of existence only means they'll get distributed elsewhere. It's much harder to run an open source dev project in secret than it is to seed a huge library of ROMS over BT.
pdntspa 2y ago
> You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property Yes you can, if you are someplace out of reach of the law.
EMIRELADERO 2y ago
> You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but this is just lazy. But IP law says nothing about interaction with already-existing copies. This just isn't about copyright at all.
- jachee 2y ago
  Okay, so how do you plug a proprietary Switch cart into a PC to play your “already-existing copy” on an emulator?
  - devmor 2y ago
    There have been tools built to do this, which Nintendo abused IP law to shut down.
    - sim7c00 2y ago
      isnt this basically piracy enabling technology? its good n all that people take the stance they will only use it for their legitimately owned copies but thats not the reality. people dump stuff and spread it around, and others play illegal copies. its much more rare for people to use such tech legitimately than the other clearly illegal case...
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        Ope, we'd better ban CD burners, Xerox machines, 3D printers, EPROM burners, VCRs, and DAT tape decks because they're pIrAcY eNaBlInG tEcHnOlOgY!!!!!! That's not how any of this works.
        roywiggins 2y ago
        It's how the DMCA works though, if the media has any DRM on it.
necovek 2y ago
"Intellectual property" is a meaningless term: GP is specifically referring to rules dictated by copyright laws, which generally allow one to do whatever they please with their "copy" for the most part (as long as they don't hurt the copyright holder's business through a couple of well defined "protections"). Copyright laws were established when it became cheap to "copy" creative works, so creativity would continue to be stimulated by guaranteeing rewards for a set time (idea was not to guarantee getting filthy rich, just to make sure creation happens by keeping the authors fairly compensated). Digital "sales" are attempts to trick customers into thinking they are buying a copy when they are only getting a license, but this is unrelated to Nintendo killing emulators with an army of lawyers.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kibwen 2y ago
    > Only if you try to package it and sell it en masse. Ryujinx wasn't being sold, it was being given away for free. > Someone else distributed a tool that can be argued as used to bypass copyright By this logic your entire computer is a tool to bypass copyright. An emulator is just a virtual machine, it doesn't contain any games or other copyrighted material. They are legal, despite Nintendo's mafioso scare tactics.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      "packaged and distributed en masses" is you want to be nitpicky. I don't get to get away with dealing illegal substances just because I give it away for free. Money simply puts a target on my back. >your entire computer is a tool to bypass copyright Reducto ad absurdum doesn't really work here. There are specific scopes and use cases taken into consideration when considering what tools or works are bypassing copyright. I cant claim Yuzu is the same as VMware in their use cases (especially when VMware had to work with Microsoft to have that be allowed. And why it can't legally distribute Mac OS Tom's freely).
altruios 2y ago
I can run legally an mp3 through a calculator. No one can dictate otherwise - it's my machine, and purchased media to do with as I (privately) please. This does not interfere with copyright. To legislate otherwise would be insane - as that would effectively legislate your ability to calculate. This argument extends to any purchased media, to any program.
- wilsonnb3 2y ago
  If your mp3 is copy protected and your calculator bypasses that copy protection, it is in fact illegal (in the US)
  - altruios 2y ago
    Such a translation would be "format shifting" which is protected under US/UK law (IANAL).
    - wilsonnb3 2y ago
      I think you are correct in the case of an actual MP3 file and calculator. I was thinking they were metaphorical.
      - altruios 2y ago
        Not just a mp3 file. any media you have purchased can be format shifted by you for archive/personal purposes. regardless of DRM/copy protections. What is illegal is redistribution (thus the copyright). Again: ianal. But this is kind of a fundamental right. If you own something, it's yours to do with privately as you wish. If you don't own the copyright, then you can't redistribute.
        zerocrates 2y ago
        The DMCA makes breaking DRM illegal, even when done for fair use purposes, if it doesn't fall into a small number of tightly-defined exceptions. And they can go after tools that enable people to do this, as well (think of DeCSS for example).
ysofunny 2y ago
IP is an obsolete idea of a bygone century it arose from a legitimate answer to material scarcity, but it's nonesense in the digital space people who advocate for IP and DRM and all such thing are in the end advocating for scarcity.
- MaxBarraclough 2y ago
  What do you say to people who want to stop using Open Source software licences and instead use 'Fair Source' licences intended to prevent cloud companies monetising the works of others? For instance, here's discussion about a blog post titled So you want to compete with or replace open source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40993787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40993787 With no copyright, it would be akin to using permissive BSD-style licensing, which is by no means everyone's preference.
  - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
    Good for them. Free Software is much too easy to abuse, and we need something that provides additional protections.
    - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
      Sounds like you believe copyright can serve a legitimate purpose then. I presume you don't hold that IP is an obsolete idea of a bygone century, as ysofunny put it.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  I don't agree with them, but i haven't seen the argument being pro scarcity. To steelman it, the argument is that without these protections the incentive to create is lower so we actually will have more scarcity
  - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
    Without the ability to use asbestos, the incentive to build houses is lower, so we actually will have less houses.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
Emulating consoles that are no longer sold makes some sense. Emulating a console that already exists just feels wrong. Even if technically in the right. And it's hard to ignore, even when the emulator is in the right, 100% legal, 99.99% of people will simply be pirating their roms.
- craftkiller 2y ago
  Well if we're going to dive into morality, requiring me to produce additional pollution and e-waste to run your program when I have a perfectly capable turing machine already is unconscionable. Nintendo: Put your games on steam. Let me buy them without killing the planet. Apple: License your damn operating system for running on non-apple hardware. Hell, just let me legally run it in an virtual machine so I can test my scripts on your OS without killing the planet.
  - mightyham 2y ago
    Nintendo's primary competitive advantage in the gaming space is it's expertise in hardware and tight integration of self-published games. Nintendo would have to fundamentally change it's business model and alter the design of their games (and consequently the unique appeal of them) in order to fit your demand. You are right about Apple though, simply allowing people to install their OS on other hardware for personal use would not impact their market strategy in any significant way.
    - craftkiller 2y ago
      I'd argue the success of the switch emulators proves their games can be successful without changes in the PC space. I'd certainly agree with you when it came to Wii-era games since that had the unusual controller[0] but the switch is a pretty standard controller. [0] Which they could have sold as first-party PC accessories, further capitalizing on the PC market
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
ls612 2y ago
Back before the computer era it was the case that once you bought a product the IP rights to it were extinguished and you could do whatever you wanted with it except distribute copies. The end of that combined with ubiquitous internet and decent TPMs that aren’t riddled with vulnerabilities effectively heralds the end of private property, or at least private property that involves electricity in its function.
joquarky 2y ago
IP is unnatural. No other arguments needed

cubefox 2y ago

> ultimately this is just another corporation trying to disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property, in specific video games. Is it reasonable to assume the majority of Ryujinx users merely emulate Switch games they legally own? That only a minority uses the emulator to play pirated Switch games?

doctorpangloss 2y ago
I don’t know why you are being downvoted. Of course emulators are being used to play pirated games.
- cheeze 2y ago
  Yeah. It's a bummer because I actually own the games and just want to play them at 4k60 rather than on the weak HW of the Switch. But I understand why Nintendo would target emulators of a _current gen console_. To say that this is solely an attack on law abiding folks who own the game is... being willfully ignorant because you don't want to accept that a large percentage of installs are doing so for piracy.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Of course it's not solely an attack on law abiding folks who own the game. But is is an attack on them nonetheless. Its also an attack on open source, software freedom, and digital preservation. Further, assuming there were legal threats involved, its an abuse of the legal system to harass open source developers working on perfectly legal software. Emulators are also direct competition to Nintendo's hardware, so you could see this as an anti-competitive move as well. There are lots of problems with this, and they're only mostly Nintendo's fault.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      It's also important to remember that emulators exist without ROMs. All the code that's in an emulator isn't infringing on any Nintendo's IP -- it's re-implementing Nintendo's hardware interface. That it can be used to make piracy easier is unfortunately, but isn't really the emulator developers' concern, given... There are substantial, legal, non-infringing uses. In most legal jurisdictions, thankfully you can't ban something useful just because it might be used to commit a crime.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Apple doesn’t need any laws to enforce the following: - you can’t pirate App Store IAP - you can’t pirate Apple News - you can’t pirate Apple Arcade - you can’t pirate iCloud storage and you can’t upgrade phone storage space from anyone but Apple, and therefore the amount of data you can practicably store in the iOS ecosystem - it’s impracticable to pirate App Store apps Okay, that’s like 90% of Apple services revenue. Is Apple the only company allowed to make money? That’s kind of what your position is: “the only permissible limitations are the ones that cannot be surmounted technologically.” Why should the law be toothless in copyright protections, but not in other things? Because that is a Pro Apple position in disguise.

Brian_K_White 2y ago
The law should have teeth and should say that DRM is actually illegal, or at the very least that circumventing it is legal. No matter how ludicrously long Disney manages to get copyright terms extended to, copyright does still expire, and there are even other exceptions such accessibility and military and emergency usage that trump copyright. But encryption never expires and does not care if it would save someones life to use some product in some unusual situation, so, it should either be illegal to sell an encrypted audiobook that can never be decrypted even 100 years later when it is public domain, or at the very least, if it is to be legal to produce such a thing, then the trade-off is it is at least legal for anyone else to try to overcome it. How could drm risk anyone's life? I don't know but it isn't just protecting a movie from playing, it's baked into the hardware of devices and makes the entire device non-functional, like HDCP making a display not-display. Maybe a pdf has critical emergency information like how to sanitize water during an natural disater or war, or identify if a berry is safe or poisonous, but the only pdf you have happened to come from an expensive college course so you can't read it. Contrived examples will always sound contrived and dismissable but no particular example matters. The principle holds even without any examples. If a tv can fail to tv, then forget about if tvs are important, what matters is a tool can be arbitrarily and artificially rendered non-functional. The law should absolutely have teeth, but it should say something other than what it currently does, and have the teeth to enforce that.
- deleted 2y ago

Narhem 2y ago

Could be an organization issue, when I think of a Nintendo Switch it should be organized under Bh not Gh. Especially with an emulator which doesn’t get updates from Nintendo.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>disturb people in their ownership of their purchased property It's a nice utopic view, but I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the games emulated are also owned by the user. I'd be surprised if more than half the people using emulators ever owned a Switch to begin with. >Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some company located on an island on the other side of the world should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my possession. They don't really. If you made Ryujinx or Yuzu and kept it to yourself and maybe a few close friends, they'd never know nor care. But things get complicated when you post it on the public internet. >This is why it's important to claw back as much ownership in that space as possible. If you want things to move in the right direction, you should sign https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci if you're an EU citizen, or support them in any other way if you're not. I dont think even the EU wants to touch the matter of emulation. Precisely because they may discover many emulator users are pirates.

ChrisRR 2y ago

> purchased property Remember the distinction here is that the property is the licence to use the software, not a physical item. It confuses the discussion of what can and can't be done