3 ms·

IANAL, but... The digital restrictions management that Nintendo implemented with the Gameboy described here sounds like something that I've heard actual lawyer

by jordigh 12y ago

IANAL, but... The digital restrictions management that Nintendo implemented with the Gameboy described here sounds like something that I've heard actual lawyers say works: you write an API in a way that the only way to use it is to make your code declare something or other. For example, you make you code do something like some_function(posarg1, posarg2, i_agree_to_the_license=True) and if you don't pass that named boolean parameter, the API just refuses to work. If I understood these lawyers correctly, code is indeed law.

anon4 12y ago
Interesting. So what if the program presents the user a window saying "do you agree to be bound by <company X's EULA> which explicitly forbids third-party use of their API and thus agreeing to it will constitute breaking the law?" and pass that as a parameter. Or if you distribute it in source code only with the parameter settable via a configure param and asking the user to build a version that works? Or make a shim library that hooks to the API then distribute your product with a different shim library that passes false in this particular parameter, but leave notes on which bit to flip with a hex editor in the compiled binary to enable the functionality. This obviously gets less and less user-friendly the more we abstract it, but I'm wondering what its legal standing is.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
IANAL, but there was a similar trick on the Sega Genesis. But the Tengen lawsuit established that unlicensed games were legal to produce. I ran through this in my head when I was messing with homebrew GBA in 1999-ish, why was it there if it was already case law that the trick was ineffectual? It didn't occur to me at the time that in different legal jurisdictions than the USA it might still be an effective legal protection. The GBA had the same sort of trick (as part of the bootstrap process you had to push some data into a memory location that contained Nintendo trademarks or the bios wouldn't boot your cart.)

by jordigh 12y ago

anon4 12y ago

Interesting. So what if the program presents the user a window saying "do you agree to be bound by <company X's EULA> which explicitly forbids third-party use of their API and thus agreeing to it will constitute breaking the law?" and pass that as a parameter. Or if you distribute it in source code only with the parameter settable via a configure param and asking the user to build a version that works? Or make a shim library that hooks to the API then distribute your product with a different shim library that passes false in this particular parameter, but leave notes on which bit to flip with a hex editor in the compiled binary to enable the functionality. This obviously gets less and less user-friendly the more we abstract it, but I'm wondering what its legal standing is.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

IANAL, but there was a similar trick on the Sega Genesis. But the Tengen lawsuit established that unlicensed games were legal to produce. I ran through this in my head when I was messing with homebrew GBA in 1999-ish, why was it there if it was already case law that the trick was ineffectual? It didn't occur to me at the time that in different legal jurisdictions than the USA it might still be an effective legal protection. The GBA had the same sort of trick (as part of the bootstrap process you had to push some data into a memory location that contained Nintendo trademarks or the bios wouldn't boot your cart.)