1036
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1036 points (99.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54698 readers
406 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow, fuck Nintendo. For well over a decade they didn't give a shit about emulating old games. In fact, it was and is still the only way to play a lot of old games. Now nintendo is trying to use their shit flimsy online emulator as an excuse to claim IP right to 30 year old games they don't give a shit about. Granted this is about the emulator itself, but doesn't matter. Guess I won't be buying the next switch console.
There's a fairly big difference between "you're making an emulator for a console we stopped selling anything for a decade ago" and "you are actively cutting into the sales of everything we are currently doing"
Frankly, Im not quite sure what anyone expected. Of course they were going to go after them harder tan usual, especially when they made it pretty obvious they used proprietary code from TOTK. I'm as pro-piracy as they come, but ya still gotta use some of your brain.
E: sp
The precedent that almost everyone cites (because it is some of the only) is Sony vs Bleem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit
Initial release was in 1999 and lawsuits were around the same time. PS2 launched in 2000. So while the bleem marketing was a complete mess, the emulator existing while a console was still "alive" does not matter in the slightest.
The main point of that ruling was that they weren't using proprietary code. Yuzu almost certainly did after the TOTK leak, unless they magically just happened to improve that much directly afterwards.
I don't like it, but there's a pretty big chance that Yuzu loses this one.
That's not what using proprietary code means in this case.
Besides, it's possible they "legitimately" bought a copy of the game from a store that accidentally broke the embargo date. You can't legally blame customers for that.
Sega v. Accolade was about using proprietary code, Sega lost and the small snippet of code that was reverse engineered out of the Genesis was deemed fair use because there was no other way to get an unlicensed cartridge to run on the console
Yes. I agree and said as much elsewhere in this thread.
My issue was with your statement of
Where, no, there is not a difference there.