3 ms·

So we agree that Valve, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all operate platforms that support DRM. Wonderful! I'm not interesting in bickering over who's DRM is the

by dcow 19d ago

So we agree that Valve, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all operate platforms that support DRM. Wonderful! I'm not interesting in bickering over who's DRM is the easiest to remove XD In the US it's not piracy to make archival backups of digital media that you own in the first place, anyway. Even so, nothing gives you the right to use the software in ways that violate the EULA (except for your rights under the DMCA to create archival copies) regardless of whether you backed up the media with or without the DRM. To put it plainly your right to create an archival copy does not extend to a right to run the media on unsupported/licensed hardware & software. I think that's an issue that should be solved, we likely agree, but let's not pretend that the situation with Steam is somehow healthy for society whereas with Sony it's not just because the DRM is slightly easier to circumvent.

ndriscoll 19d ago
> nothing gives you the right to use the software in ways that violate the EULA Correct, that right is innate. > your right to create an archival copy does not extend to a right to run the media on unsupported/licensed hardware & software It does. Not even morally, but legally. Sony litigated this and lost, but bankrupted the emulator developer in the process. Emulators and compatible hardware and software have been consistently ruled legal. It is only the bypassing of copy protection that is not. And if you're not interested in the feasibility of asserting your rights by removing the DRM, then naturally you'll never understand why people consider Valve and Sony materially different.
- dcow 8d ago
  I've done my fair share of reversing, modding, rooting, jailbreaking. Asserting my rights is very interesting to me, which is why I think you're missing a fair bit of nuance. I ran this discussion through Astra to check my own recollection and it came to the point that: "copying proprietary firmware and circumventing DRM are separate questions". The Connectix case doesn't establish a right to circumvent DRM to play games that you "own". It only provides fair use protections for emulator developers. The Bleem case (the one where the president said the litigation bankrupt them) has to do with game screenshots in comparative advertising. And probably most apropos, irrespective of whether DRM is used or not, there is no protection in the DMCA or other US code that allows you to circumvent an authentication check in order to play a game. So "just remove the steam dll load command, it's trivial" exposes you to the same level of legal liability as "ugh I have to strip the Sony DRM then crack my copy of <sony exclusive>". If you look at what's happened recently, there are narrow regulatory exemptions, issued in 2024 and codified at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40(b)(19) that cover, among other things, restoring personal local play of lawfully acquired complete games after required authentication-server support ends. Other provisions permit preservation by eligible libraries, archives, and museums, including limited circumvention of console software. They do not establish a general personal right to jailbreak any console or decrypt any purchased game. Very respectfully, I think you're conflating a few different things here. I very much wish the world was as you are trying to assert. But my own understanding of US law and case law and a check against Astra don't corroborate your claims.

by dcow 19d ago

ndriscoll 19d ago

> nothing gives you the right to use the software in ways that violate the EULA Correct, that right is innate. > your right to create an archival copy does not extend to a right to run the media on unsupported/licensed hardware & software It does. Not even morally, but legally. Sony litigated this and lost, but bankrupted the emulator developer in the process. Emulators and compatible hardware and software have been consistently ruled legal. It is only the bypassing of copy protection that is not. And if you're not interested in the feasibility of asserting your rights by removing the DRM, then naturally you'll never understand why people consider Valve and Sony materially different.

dcow 8d ago
I've done my fair share of reversing, modding, rooting, jailbreaking. Asserting my rights is very interesting to me, which is why I think you're missing a fair bit of nuance. I ran this discussion through Astra to check my own recollection and it came to the point that: "copying proprietary firmware and circumventing DRM are separate questions". The Connectix case doesn't establish a right to circumvent DRM to play games that you "own". It only provides fair use protections for emulator developers. The Bleem case (the one where the president said the litigation bankrupt them) has to do with game screenshots in comparative advertising. And probably most apropos, irrespective of whether DRM is used or not, there is no protection in the DMCA or other US code that allows you to circumvent an authentication check in order to play a game. So "just remove the steam dll load command, it's trivial" exposes you to the same level of legal liability as "ugh I have to strip the Sony DRM then crack my copy of <sony exclusive>". If you look at what's happened recently, there are narrow regulatory exemptions, issued in 2024 and codified at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40(b)(19) that cover, among other things, restoring personal local play of lawfully acquired complete games after required authentication-server support ends. Other provisions permit preservation by eligible libraries, archives, and museums, including limited circumvention of console software. They do not establish a general personal right to jailbreak any console or decrypt any purchased game. Very respectfully, I think you're conflating a few different things here. I very much wish the world was as you are trying to assert. But my own understanding of US law and case law and a check against Astra don't corroborate your claims.