9 ms·
> 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 o
by 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 agoIf 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 agoIt'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 agoOkay, so how do you plug a proprietary Switch cart into a PC to play your “already-existing copy” on an emulator?
- devmor 2y agoThere have been tools built to do this, which Nintendo abused IP law to shut down.
- sim7c00 2y agoisnt 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 agoOpe, 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 agoIt's how the DMCA works though, if the media has any DRM on it.
- DrillShopper 2y agoNo it's not. You can't just say "SOME PEOPLE ARE USING THIS FOR PIRACY SO NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS LEGALLY". That's _not_ how it works and there are many court cases on point here. The legal uses as well as the plausible fair uses need to be evaluated before you can say "nope, this has gotta go".
- 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 agoI 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 agoIf your mp3 is copy protected and your calculator bypasses that copy protection, it is in fact illegal (in the US)
- altruios 2y agoSuch a translation would be "format shifting" which is protected under US/UK law (IANAL).
- wilsonnb3 2y agoI think you are correct in the case of an actual MP3 file and calculator. I was thinking they were metaphorical.
- altruios 2y agoNot 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 agoThe 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 agoIP 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 agoWhat 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 agoGood for them. Free Software is much too easy to abuse, and we need something that provides additional protections.
- MaxBarraclough 2y agoSounds 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 agoI 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 agoWithout the ability to use asbestos, the incentive to build houses is lower, so we actually will have less houses.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y agoEmulating 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 agoWell 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 agoNintendo'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 agoI'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 agoBack 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 agoIP is unnatural. No other arguments needed