Your question whether rhetorical or not is presented as a bad faith question. And to answer your question…yes. Apple and for walled garden environment.
What are you doing? Like what’s your end goal here? Are you attempting to make a point? Are you trying to say something deep? You’re on fucking Lemmy arguing that apple good for walled garden and locked down systems…
Holy shit, it's so easy to make people on this site mad by just responding to their comments. I'm literally just trying to make sense of your shit take.
Huh, I knew that Nintendo had braindead fanboys but I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks that corporations teaming up to kill emulation is a good thing.
Having much greater lawyer force than a couple of developers. Nintendo would win even if they are not right. Or even if not win, those developers would go completely bancrupt for the rest of their lifes because of lawyers costs.
Circumventing DRM is illegal under the DMCA, but the DMCA has an exception saying you’re allowed to ignore parts of the DMCA if it’s for purposes of interoperability between different computer systems. It’s that exception that makes emulators legal in the first place. However, there’s no case law setting a precedent as to whether the DRM circumvention prohibition or interoperability exception wins when both apply.
That means that the decryption is in a grey area if it’s part of an emulator, but definitely illegal if it isn’t.
We also don’t know if this is an argument Nintendo relied on to stop Yuzu. Their initial court documents claimed things like emulators being totally illegal and only invented for piracy, which weren’t true, and they settled out of court, so the public can’t see what the final nail in the coffin was. It could simply be that they’d make Yuzu’s position expensive to defend with spurious delays until they were bankrupt or shut down and gave them all their money, which doesn’t require Nintendo to be legally in the right.
Not long before this, Dolphin’s Steam release was cancelled because Nintendo asked Valve to block it, so the Dolphin team double checked they were entirely above board with their lawyers. Despite Dolphin containing the decryption keys from a real Wii, and using them to decrypt Wii games, they were confident it wasn’t at risk. The keys are an example of a so-called illegal number, but they’re generally believed to not actually be illegal (hence the Wikipedia article about them featuring several examples). The decryption should be safe as the lawyers thought that if push came to shove, the interoperability exception would beat the DRM circumvention prohibition.
By going after the encryption and decryption part rather than the hardware and software emulation part. And having a massive amount of money to spend on lawyers.
*Nintendo quietly shows Apple Yuzu's corpse in their trunk while staring sternly and slowly and audibly tapping a bloody baseball bat against the ground behind their back... *
Apple has make a lawsuit last long enough to not make it worth it money. The worst a lawsuit against Apple did is stopping sales of Apple Watches for a week.
App developers are responsible for the content the emulators can include (which are called mini-apps)
So let’s say I am Square Enix. I own the rights to Chrono Trigger. I can release an emulator with Chrono Trigger SNES ROM and can sell it as Chrono Trigger. I cannot have said emulator allowed to run Super Mario World, as that would get my program delisted from App Store.
This is not limited to just emulators though. We can classify the games in roblox as mini apps; so let’s say if Roblox doesn’t remove a game that clearly infringes copyright; they too will get removed from App Store. (Which is one of the many reasons why they try to remove the games that contain these content)
Emulation for game preservation is fine, these ones getting taken down by Nintendo aren’t doing that. They are promoting piracy, providing the keys to play games, and making a profit.
Theres ways to go about this legally, advocating piracy, profiting and providing the keys are what’s not legal.
Your confusing the product and the creators of it.
They are one and the same. If you knew where to look, they provided means. This is one case that didn’t even make it to discovery before settling, that just tells you how fucked they were and how wrong they did everything.
What’s wrong with Twitter? You could also just google this and find the information yourself, don’t know why I have to provide what should be common knowledge on this subject. They were not a legal emulator, full stop, sorry.
Queues arguement doesn’t work since they didn’t reverse engineer their key….
I’m not defending Nintendo, I am providing information on the subject, it just unfortunately only looks bad for one side here. I even said legal emulation has its place…. So how am I “shill” and “defending” Nintendo? Because I proved you are fucking wrong? Lmfao. Why is THAT always the comeback in this scenarios?
The emulator is illegal, since they didnt make their own key, queues argument at the very bottom is about its legal when you do xyz, which yuzu never did.
I’m sorry the facts don’t align with your bias here and your only recourse is to insult me.
I gave you 5 resources. None of then were about Yuzu, why are you still taking about it? It seems like you didn’t even click on any of my links. And other then calling you a shill, and telling you to F off, what other insults have I called you?
You have been shilling for Nintendo in your comments in this thread. Insulting, sure, but by definition that is what you are/doing. You choose to take the word that defines what you are doing as an insult. Maybe don’t be a shill and you won’t feel insulted?
I gave you 5 resources. None of then were about Yuzu, why are you still taking about it? It seems like you didn’t even click on any of my links.
Because I’m not biting into your fallacious goalpost moving…? It’s trolling, nothing else.
What does any of those 5 links have to do with what was being discussed? Oh nothing, you didn’t like being wrong so now you’re throwing shit at the wall.
They are one and the same. If you knew where to look, they provided means.
Tools are agnostic to their use. Tools do not have a preference how they are used. Hammers that are used are agnostic to if they are hammering a nail into a wall or caving in a skull. Yuzu would work exactly the same if you dumped your own carts. Same for emulators for Genesis and Atari 2600 and PlayStation.
What’s wrong with Twitter? You could also just google this and find the information yourself, don’t know why I have to provide what should be common knowledge on this subject.
If you make a claim, you need to provide the evidence. That’s how these things work. You say a claim, you give us the proof. And I can say on Twitter “Yuzu was 100000% legal and Nintendo actually is the real illegal operation”. Now that’s a valid source too, right?
Sorry but that biggest technology legal experts and defenders of the little guys who get sued by the big companies you polish the boots with your tongue strongly prove you wrong.
Stop peddling that stupid lie already. They didn’t use any key period; we literally have backups of the entire GPL source code will all of the commit history dating all the way back to August 30, 2013, stop spewing bullshit out your mouth.
You had to rip your own key from your own legally purchased switch hardware using legally protected homebrew tools and manually add it to Yuzu configs.This process is protected under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act establishes the fair use exception, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research”.
Clean Room design reverse engineering for the purpose of creating an Emulator falls under “research” as listed by section 107 and independent creation as protected by existing judicial precedents.
Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.
Meaning Clean Room design reverse engineering as independent creation & modifying your legally purchased hardware with homebrew tools as fair use being protected by existing judicial precedents is also in turn protected by Section 107.
And the Twitter thread had the sources
Twitter doesn’t allow us to reverse the thread, kindly link the exact source you’re referring to.
Which they didn’t do since their ripped key was in a google drive (it was someone else’s key) and they had folders full of illegal roms….
You would also need to know how decode and use that key, it’s not just taking a key and suddenly you have a working emulator, you can’t be serious about this are you…?
That’s not how you make an emulator and claim game preservation, sorry. Yuzu got sued and didn’t even make it to discovery, since they had nothing to stand on…. Since they had an illegal bios key and game roms.
Which they didn’t do since their ripped key was in a google drive (it was someone else’s key) and they had folders full of illegal roms….
Again, provide proof or kindly STFU.
You would also need to know how decode and use that key, it’s not just taking a key and suddenly you have a working emulator, you can’t be serious about this are you…?
Please learn how the fuck clean room design reverse engineering works. It’s a 2 team operation were one team uses reverse engineering methods to write spec documentation without any code at all, then another team without access to copyright content using the that spec documentation to build out the actual code. This again is already deamed independent creation under section 107.
That’s not how you make an emulator and claim game preservation, sorry. Yuzu got sued and didn’t even make it to discovery, since they had nothing to stand on…. Since they had an illegal bios key and game roms.
They had TOTK working on their emulator before the game released. How did they get they key, and test and update their emulator with legally acquired clean room techniques…?
Sure, if you ignore the mountain of evidence, they did things kinda right. The proof is right there if you don’t just choose to ignore it since it doesn’t align with your bias….
And everything is deleted and scrubbed, the only thing you’ll find is posts and articles talking about it now.
You fundamentally misunderstand how emulators work. Emulators are the recreation of the actual spec of the hardware itself in software. They do not need some unique key for TOTK to work as the hardware itself is what’s being emulated not some encryption key pulled of the hardware. All the key does is decode the ROMs encryption so it can be run by the hardware and inturn the emulator that’s mimicking the hardware. Literally any encryption key dumped from any homebrew’d switch can decode TOTK. Not once did Yuzu access TOTK ROMs files, more over the TOTK ROMs was leaked by a 3rd party with no connection to Yuzu.
They did multiple things illegally, yet you want to still believe that they did this one specific thing correct…? While everything else they did wasnt…? What have they done correct to make you believe that this was also done “by the book”…?
The key that they were caught with (the one they would have given someone to clean room with) was illegally acquired. So sure they may have clean roomed it, but they acquired the original illegally, which means the software itself, before everything else, wasn’t done correctly as well. So they couldn’t use that defense like other lawsuits, so that’s why they settled out of court before discovery, since discovery would have made it far worse for them and other developers.
Where is the proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key? Actually. Even if they acquired a key without homebrew, it still doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement, that only comes into play if they were publicly distributing an illegally acquired key. Which you’ve yet to provide any evidence of. Again, provide literally any screenshots of them disturbing an illegally acquired key.
I’m asking for proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key and were illegally distributing said key. All sources I’ve found state that the Yuzu devs used “prod.keys” obtained from legitimate Switch hardware for internal use and didn’t publicly distribute any said keys. The said many sources even state that they provided directions on how to obtain your own key which isn’t illegal and is in favor of them not distributing keys. This is also backed by the Yuzu source code persevered in the previously provided mirror and Yuzu website preserved here and by wayback machine.
Your failer to provide literally any source at all points to you being a biased corrupt source.
Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
We’ve been over this already. Homebrew tools are completely legal under section 107.
Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
No they didn’t, they provided links to 3rd party homebrew tools which in themselves are again protected by section 107.
This is entirely irrelevant to your claim that they provided encryption keys.
The key they used was acquired illegally,
Proof?
they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally,
No, they again provided a guide on how to homebrew your own console and dump your own key legally. Which yet again is covered by section 107.
they tested with illegal Roms,
Again, Proof?
they profited from it,
No. They profited from beta releases of their legal emulation software, which is legal, there’s many legal for profit emulators that exists and infact most of the precedence set for emulators are set by for-profit emulators, which yet again are protected under section 107.
etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
I’m not ignoring anything, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide proof, multiple times now.
That’s IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial… they profited…. It also says personal use…… It also says certain cases…. which they certainly didn’t fall under!
personal, non-commercial use has
considered a lawful fair use in certain
You just shot your own foot again with your own source, but you’re probably not going to comprehend this either, and I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment now since youve moved to insulting to try and make your asinine point, bye!
The wording of the new App Store rules say developers are responsible for any software offered in an app, and there’s been a bit of debate going on as to what that means in practice.
I haven’t heard if any emulators have or haven’t passed Apple’s review process yet.
Nintendo goes after individual emulators, which are now even easier to track on an app store. Takes them out, potentially extracting user information for further Bowser sized rulings against the lot of them.
Add comment