stance on emulation of game consoles that's still in its life support?

[凸(◣_◢)凸]

i've seen some people saying that you should wait until that game console ran out of its life support and some people saying that it doesn't matter so i was wondering what are you guys thought about this

[Boblin the Goblin]

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от car:

Running the games directly on a console are faster than wasting time to emulate them on PC.

It depends on how much information an emulator can extract about how the console's firmware works, without doing something usually-illegal like decompiling. If the manufacturer leaves the firmware exposed then emulating it is pretty easy, legally. They'd have to prove their business was being harmed somehow, which is an intangible argument when no sales are taking place.

But if decompiling is the only way to figure out what the 'real deal' is, and the manufacturer knows this, then creating a software copy of it becomes a legal 'no.' Many have accused the vast majority of Switch emulation projects of being plants, for instance, because so many relied on decompiling and other illegal techniques that left them vulnerable to copyright claims.

And Nintendo (or any other company) has no need to prove malfeasance, or even the security of their firmware containers. They just have to have a judge sign off on it being 'indecipherable,' and then if anyone just guesses correctly at how it works tada. Infringement.

So they have a potential use for sending personnel to these projects specifically to 'guess' at this protected code.

Meanwhile everything made before 1991 or so is so simplistic and well-known that creating a software copy is a no-brainer legal act. Even if the (native, old) games are more legally dubious to distribute.

China's released games for the NES in 2023 for instance; the hardware is ok to copy and know, and the games were self-made and don't infringe on copyrights. You can buy these games legally in the US and elsewhere.

None of the Switch emulators used Nintendo's code to emulate anything. They were both built from the ground up.

Yuzu got hit because they advertised and encouraged playing leaked games before their official release date. Ryujinx only got 'hit' in private with an offer to the emulator creator since they never encouraged any illegal activity and never used any copyrighted code.

The code for both emulators was publicly available ever since they were created. If they used actually code from the consoles, they would've been hit like SXOS was.

[permanent name]

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

None of the Switch emulators used Nintendo's code to emulate anything. They were both built from the ground up.

So? If Nintendo owns the code copyright that doesn't matter. Same as how Oracle owns all the most-efficient ways to operate databases and will sue you if you copy their methods on accident.

Yuzu got hit because they advertised and encouraged playing leaked games before their official release date. Ryujinx only got 'hit' in private with an offer to the emulator creator since they never encouraged any illegal activity and never used any copyrighted code.

The code for both emulators was publicly available ever since they were created. If they used actually code from the consoles, they would've been hit like SXOS was.

That's a strange thing for Yuzu to do isn't it. That literally means they had an insider of some kind, somewhere. Even if the leaker was not part of the team, it was still clearly working with that leaker.

I dunno; how does Nintendo define the Switch code, legally? I heard that they often require discrete firmware packages, similar to the ps2 situation. As such there's no particularly legal way to have a switch emulator unless you own a switch.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

None of the Switch emulators used Nintendo's code to emulate anything. They were both built from the ground up.

So? If Nintendo owns the code copyright that doesn't matter. Same as how Oracle owns all the most-efficient ways to operate databases and will sue you if you copy their methods on accident.

It actually does matter. If they aren't using copyrighted code, then they can't be sued for infringing on copyright. That's literally how emulators exist. They emulate the functions of a console without using any of the copyrighted code.

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

Yuzu got hit because they advertised and encouraged playing leaked games before their official release date. Ryujinx only got 'hit' in private with an offer to the emulator creator since they never encouraged any illegal activity and never used any copyrighted code.

The code for both emulators was publicly available ever since they were created. If they used actually code from the consoles, they would've been hit like SXOS was.

That's a strange thing for Yuzu to do isn't it. That literally means they had an insider of some kind, somewhere. Even if the leaker was not part of the team, it was still clearly working with that leaker.

I dunno; how does Nintendo define the Switch code, legally? I heard that they often require discrete firmware packages, similar to the ps2 situation. As such there's no particularly legal way to have a switch emulator unless you own a switch.

The Switch has a firmware that holds the encrypted product keys. Without those keys, the emulators will not play any games. You are required to dump those keys from your own console.

The emulator does reveal those encrypted keys. All it does it reads them to verify they exist for whatever game you are attempting to play.

[permanent name]

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

So? If Nintendo owns the code copyright that doesn't matter. Same as how Oracle owns all the most-efficient ways to operate databases and will sue you if you copy their methods on accident.

It actually does matter. If they aren't using copyrighted code, then they can't be sued for infringing on copyright. That's literally how emulators exist. They emulate the functions of a console without using any of the copyrighted code.

There's a legal difference between 'Nintendo's code' and the lines they've copywritten. It doesn't have a clear legal backing, but the courts and plaintiffs have conspired to treat this soft concept as real and valid. Mostly via precedents set by hand-picked judges and ratified by higher courts.

When you decompile a Switch to see how the code works, so that you can write something similar but different, you're infringing on Nintendo's code. If not their copyright.

Cases have been made about this in regards to a wide variety of companies, such as Yuzu's first legal battle where they were saddled with a Nintendo overseer to make sure they didn't do it again. Which makes their current situation highly, highly suspect.

The Switch has a firmware that holds the encrypted product keys. Without those keys, the emulators will not play any games. You are required to dump those keys from your own console.

The emulator does reveal those encrypted keys. All it does it reads them to verify they exist for whatever game you are attempting to play.

So you're required to use a dedicated token Nintendo placed on the console. Literally a piece of their intellectual property, one that passes the SNES test from the 1998 Donkey Kong Country case.

Nintendo's code, in other words. Encrypting it doesn't give them a right to own it, and they can't copyright it and also allow you to use it, but taking it out of its framework and utilizing it counts the same as decompiling it would. Even though it hasn't been decrypted.

Blame judges for having no idea how technology works and using their position to declare laws as a consequence.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

It actually does matter. If they aren't using copyrighted code, then they can't be sued for infringing on copyright. That's literally how emulators exist. They emulate the functions of a console without using any of the copyrighted code.

There's a legal difference between 'Nintendo's code' and the lines they've copywritten. It doesn't have a clear legal backing, but the courts and plaintiffs have conspired to treat this soft concept as real and valid. Mostly via precedents set by hand-picked judges and ratified by higher courts.

When you decompile a Switch to see how the code works, so that you can write something similar but different, you're infringing on Nintendo's code. If not their copyright.

Cases have been made about this in regards to a wide variety of companies, such as Yuzu's first legal battle where they were saddled with a Nintendo overseer to make sure they didn't do it again. Which makes their current situation highly, highly suspect.

The Switch has a firmware that holds the encrypted product keys. Without those keys, the emulators will not play any games. You are required to dump those keys from your own console.

The emulator does reveal those encrypted keys. All it does it reads them to verify they exist for whatever game you are attempting to play.

So you're required to use a dedicated token Nintendo placed on the console. Literally a piece of their intellectual property, one that passes the SNES test from the 1998 Donkey Kong Country case.

Nintendo's code, in other words. Encrypting it doesn't give them a right to own it, and they can't copyright it and also allow you to use it, but taking it out of its framework and utilizing it counts the same as decompiling it would. Even though it hasn't been decrypted.

Blame judges for having no idea how technology works and using their position to declare laws as a consequence.

You aren't infringing on their code if you build code that emulates what the console code does.

That's literally how all emulation works.

Yuzu hasn't been sued before. They were getting sued and then settled before the lawsuit actually went through.

[permanent name]

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

You aren't infringing on their code if you build code that emulates what the console code does.

That's literally how all emulation works.

naww, if it's 'exact' it's infringing.

if it isn't then it's buggy.

emulation works because of non-enforcement, as enforcement would ruin most of these soft power deals.

Yuzu hasn't been sued before. They were getting sued and then settled before the lawsuit actually went through.

same thing as far someone who hasn't passed the bar is concerned. most lawyers call this getting sued too, when they aren't in a court.

[Lemur]

Първоначално публикувано от BlackBloodRum:

I fully support emulation at any time.

stance on emulation of game consoles that's still in its life support?

100%! You own the game. What's wrong with putting that CD into your computer, launching software, and running it from your computer?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от Boblin the Goblin:

You aren't infringing on their code if you build code that emulates what the console code does.

That's literally how all emulation works.

naww, if it's 'exact' it's infringing.

if it isn't then it's buggy.

emulation works because of non-enforcement, as enforcement would ruin most of these soft power deals.

Yuzu hasn't been sued before. They were getting sued and then settled before the lawsuit actually went through.

same thing as far someone who hasn't passed the bar is concerned. most lawyers call this getting sued too, when they aren't in a court.

Emulation was challenged, Sony vs Bleem! was ruled in favor of Bleem! since they didn't use any of the code from the PS1.

I never said they weren't getting sued(which they aren't now since settling). They weren't sued before the lawsuit this year. Which they reached a settlement agreement with Nintendo and that was the end of that. It never made it to court.

[kingjames488]

Първоначално публикувано от permanent name:

Първоначално публикувано от kingjames488:

wait, you're telling me that mario's outfit is just some generic japanese work attire?

so if that's the case they can only trademark is within the context of "an itallian plumber in a video game wearing said outfit" as the outfit is generic...

like how apple can't trademark a literal apple, only within the context of a PC branding.

Yes, it's a generic piece of clothing. Technically the zaibatsu (in their version of history) created these uniforms; despite the color coding and meaning for most of these professions existing before the Shogunate. I guess when you own the courts certain things Just Make Sense.

As for the rest, Japanese copyright works slightly differently. See the person who owned the "Mario" copyright, which as for a game featuring a polish welder who sometimes took on risky jobs like underwater welding to make ends meet, filed their copyright in Japan. since they wanted to sell the game to a Japanese market, as it was about economic issues which affected japan regularly; they admitted the similarity to Mario, but they were designing the game before Mario was released. And they filed for Mario before Nintendo even started making a Jumpman spin-off. And nintendo realeased Lost Levels specifically to act like Mario was a franchise rather than a one-off, in the midst of this case. Also Nintendo only held the rights to Jumpman; they didn't own squat regarding Mario.

Nintendo responded by filing copyright in the US, AFTER THE JAPANESE CASE HAD BEGUN, which according to the japanese constitution supercedes Japanese law, but owing to previous legal cases had a difficult time displacing Japanese copyrights. Unless a megaconglomerate like Nintendo was filing, in which case the government would favor these 'domestic' companies.

Nintendo then acted so poorly and was so beligerently self-assured that they had the rights to all uniforms, everywhere, and also that Mario was a real thing when it obviously was not at that point, that the judge attempted to rule the case in favor of the polish plumber. Then the government stepped in and simply declared the case won in Nintendo's favor, pending any changes in their legal situation. The case has been renewed every year since, leaving Nintendo dangling with its toes in the fire.

They also won the rights to Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, and Chrono Trigger in the case; the Mario designer filed them as examples of other projects they were working on, to prove they weren't just a copyright troll company. FF and CT were given to square/enix, who created a new studio to develop them (square) and concocted elaborate lies about their development. Similar to what happned with Door Door, also made by the Mario developer. Also stolen by Enix/E-Nick's.

So from an international copyright perspective, it's a mess with no clear answers. The apple logic doesn't apply, and the yearly renewal explored this angle around 2006 iirc. Nintendo 'owns' Mario, the polish plumber, the way God 'owns' the planet. Challenging that is equivalent to declaring war.

makes japan sound like china.