[HN Gopher] Ryujinx (Nintendo Switch emulator) has been removed ...
___________________________________________________________________
Ryujinx (Nintendo Switch emulator) has been removed from GitHub
Author : jsheard
Score : 368 points
Date : 2024-10-01 17:46 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| jsheard wrote:
| For clarity, Ryujinx has no connection to the Yuzu Switch
| emulator which Nintendo unleashed their wrath on earlier this
| year. They were developed independently of each other, by
| different people, in parallel until Yuzus demise.
| notamy wrote:
| https://gbatemp.net/threads/ryujinx-emulator-github-reposito...
|
| > UPDATE #3: According to an official statement on Ryujinx's
| Discord server, developer gdkchan was contacted by Nintendo and
| they were offered an agreement to stop working on the emulator
| project, and while the agreement wasn't confirmed yet, the
| organization has been entirely removed.
| duxup wrote:
| I get the message but this is one of those things where you
| should have YOUR explanation ready before you pause
| everything...
|
| Granted that's understandable if they didn't choose the
| timeline.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's hard to blame a hobby group for not having a perfect
| comms strategy.
| the_gorilla wrote:
| It's still true, though. If they really don't want people
| to speculate on why they did something, they can provide a
| reason. It doesn't require an entire PR team to figure that
| out.
| borski wrote:
| If and only if this was their intent and timeline. May be
| external.
| Xylakant wrote:
| They may have been hit by something entirely unexpected
| and may still need to get their bearings. "It's not
| github, it's not a DCMA takedown." may very well be the
| only thing they can communicate with a modicum of
| certainty at this moment.
| klyrs wrote:
| There are a million reasons not to say something, and a
| blush of legal anything should deter you from opening
| your mouth in public before you're straight with a
| lawyer.
| nine_k wrote:
| If what you say may have legal implications, it might be
| wiser to just say "no comments" for some time, while
| seeking proper counseling.
|
| "Not DMCA" and "not GitHub" is plenty already. But maybe
| it's a possible malware infiltration, or having something
| unbecoming committed to the repo by mistake, or anything
| else that might warrant denying public access for some
| time to prevent damage.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I think protecting themselves from being sued into
| oblivion is more important than getting a message out to
| users an hour earlier. We don't have any form of SLA
| agreement with Ryujinx
|
| Also the project is being shut down. Why should they care
| about community reaction?
| the_gorilla wrote:
| Why do I get so many inane responses every time I post
| here? Does it really take 5 people? It's impossible to
| respond even if I wanted to.
| klyrs wrote:
| This, a hundred times over. It turns out that communication
| isn't entirely a bullshit field of study* and it requires
| significant planning and effort to keep people happy.
|
| * note: all fields have bullshit; this is a recent learning
| of mine -- unlearning, rather, of a single day of a
| communications class which left me with the impression that
| many of us here seem to have of soft sciences: all bullshit
| by default.
| ls612 wrote:
| I mean it's hard to imagine this being anything other than the
| worst.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| What ever exactly happened, ultimately this is just another
| corporation trying to disturb people in their ownership of
| their purchased property, in specific video games. Anyone who
| really thinks about this topic will start questioning why some
| company located on an island on the other side of the world
| should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge or
| disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my
| possession. It's just ludicrous behavior from a group of power-
| hungry megalomaniacs. This is why it's important to claw back
| as much ownership in that space as possible. If you want things
| to move in the right direction, you should sign
| https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci if you're an EU citizen,
| or support them in any other way if you're not. This stuff is
| important and will ultimately decide whether we own things in
| our life or not, as increasingly more items have critical
| features that are anchored in the digital world. Without stuff
| like that we will become digital paupers.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| > Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start
| questioning why some company located on an island on the
| other side of the world
|
| Why does the location of the company matter? They have
| branches in america and Europe even if it does somehow
| matter.
|
| > should be dictating what I do or don't do with a cartridge
| or disc I paid for with my own money and which is in my
| possession
|
| You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property
| just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your
| possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but
| this is just lazy.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > You can't ignore the entire idea of intellectual property
| just because you have a physical disc or cartridge in your
| possession. There are arguments to be made against IP but
| this is just lazy.
|
| But IP law says nothing about interaction with already-
| existing copies. This just isn't about copyright at all.
| jachee wrote:
| Okay, so how do you plug a proprietary Switch cart into a
| PC to play your "already-existing copy" on an emulator?
| devmor wrote:
| There have been tools built to do this, which Nintendo
| abused IP law to shut down.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| isnt this basically piracy enabling technology? its good
| n all that people take the stance they will only use it
| for their legitimately owned copies but thats not the
| reality. people dump stuff and spread it around, and
| others play illegal copies. its much more rare for people
| to use such tech legitimately than the other clearly
| illegal case...
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Ope, we'd better ban CD burners, Xerox machines, 3D
| printers, EPROM burners, VCRs, and DAT tape decks because
| they're pIrAcY eNaBlInG tEcHnOlOgY!!!!!!
|
| That's not how any of this works.
| roywiggins wrote:
| It's how the DMCA works though, if the media has any DRM
| on it.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| No it's not. You can't just say "SOME PEOPLE ARE USING
| THIS FOR PIRACY SO NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS
| LEGALLY". That's _not_ how it works and there are many
| court cases on point here.
|
| The legal uses as well as the plausible fair uses need to
| be evaluated before you can say "nope, this has gotta
| go".
| roywiggins wrote:
| Well maybe, if you have the time and the money to make a
| fair use defense in court...
| stzsch wrote:
| Nintendo's latest legal argument against emulators does
| rest on the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The
| letter from Nintendo to Valve in the Dolphin case makes
| it pretty clear.
| bitwize wrote:
| > That's _not_ how it works and there are many court
| cases on point here.
|
| Those court cases were overridden by Congress... when
| they passed the DMCA.
|
| Under the DMCA, IT IS A CRIME to:
|
| 1) circumvent an "effective" copyright measure for any
| purpose, except specific, delineated purposes and cases
| which must be approved and reapproved by the Librarian of
| Congress every 3 years;
|
| 2) traffic in the means or technology to so circumvent a
| copy protection measure, with no exceptions.
|
| The definition of "effective" is so weak that it applies
| to anything, even a bit of JavaScript that intercepts
| right click so you can't "Save Image As". It basically
| means, would the copy protection measure prevent copying
| "during the normal course of its operation". I.e., if
| it's buggy, employs weak crypto, or is otherwise
| trivially defeated, too bad. You can still catch federal
| time for breaking it.
|
| In order for a Switch emulator to work properly, the copy
| protection on the game must be defeated. So even if you
| dump it yourself and a court somehow rules that copy to
| be fair use, YOU ARE STILL COMMITTING A CRIME by the very
| act of dumping it. Therefore, it is illegal to run a
| Switch emulator to play legitimate Switch games,
| irrespective of whether those games are "legal" copies or
| not. And a court may rule that Switch emulators are
| illegal to distribute as well, since they only have
| illegal uses.
|
| I am not a lawyer, so I recommend you find yourself a
| good one if you want to mess around with Switch
| emulation. Best bet is to not get involved with it at
| all. Forget about preservation. The Switch and its games
| are not yours to preserve.
| roywiggins wrote:
| If an emulator isn't actually enabling the circumvention
| (the DRM has _already_ been circumvented) it does seem a
| serious stretch to apply it to them.
|
| I wouldn't want to have to pay lawyers to litigate that,
| mind you...
| Space5000 wrote:
| How does an after fact of someone's supposed illegal
| activity become itself illegal in a case like this?
| Especially in Brazil if I'm assuming correctly.
|
| I never heard of a case declaring a non-circumvent tool
| to be illegal just because it may indirectly rely on
| people dumping it first. If so, then even project64 would
| be illegal too as bypassing a physical cartridge was
| ruled to also bypass copy protection.
|
| Also the tool was in another specific country, which I
| heard doesn't have copy protection laws so the idea that
| it itself becomes illegal because of the actions in
| another country sounds even more silly.
|
| I am not a lawyer by the way.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > You can't just say "SOME PEOPLE ARE USING THIS FOR
| PIRACY SO NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS LEGALLY"
|
| That is in fact how many court cases are resolved.
|
| >The legal uses as well as the plausible fair uses need
| to be evaluated before you can say "nope, this has gotta
| go".
|
| what "fair uses" do we really have to stand on? "I can
| play Nintendo games better on my PC"? Are you a
| university or organization trying to preserve software?
|
| At the end of the day, video games as a whole are not a
| societal need. So it becomes hard to make some argument
| against having IP owners not clamp down on entertainment
| intended to make money.
| roywiggins wrote:
| The LoC can issue exemptions, sort of, but it has to be
| renewed every three years, and they don't actually apply
| to circumvention devices themselves, only to users.
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/victory-users-
| libraria...
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/new-dmca-
| ss1201-exempt...
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| It is not the entirety of how it works but determining
| the primary intended use case of a technology is part of
| how it works.
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| Sure, but _primary intent_ is open to interpretation too.
|
| Dig down deep enough and you'll find the very core of
| computers is about making copies. Colloquially we speak
| about moving data across memory or transferring it over a
| network swap a buffer to disk, but that's not what
| happens. We make copies and often, but not always,
| abandon the original.
|
| So it's always been kind of hair splitting to discern
| between different kinds of copying. Piracy and fair use,
| owning a software vs having a license to use it - it's a
| gray area.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >primary intent is open to interpretation too.
|
| and I wager about a million kids, people who can't afford
| games, or just self-righteous pirates are the ones who
| engage in copying data. Primary intent can be warped by
| consumer usage, even if the original ideals were noble
| (see: Bitcoin).
|
| That's probably why some philantropist doesn't want to
| try and challenge matters like DMCA. It may only make
| things worse.
| deknos wrote:
| with scanner and printer i printed material for my school
| colleagues in the german version of highschool, because
| they could not afford some of the specialized books.
|
| i do not say, piracy is always okay, but the intended use
| is VERY MUCH open to debate, depending on the view point
| and the money.
|
| and even more volatile, if much money can influence the
| societal debate and the law system.
|
| many people are very much we-trust-authority-and-
| companies-to-do-nothing-wrong.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >i do not say, piracy is always okay, but the intended
| use is VERY MUCH open to debate, depending on the view
| point and the money.
|
| I completely agree with this POV. But it also seems like
| we always get an influx of users who want to unironically
| destroy (not simply readjust) the idea of IP and
| copyright everytime topics like this occur. So it can be
| hard to navigate a discussion like this where some people
| have such radical mindsests to begin with (and usually
| not anything resembling a model for their plan)
|
| >many people are very much we-trust-authority-and-
| companies-to-do-nothing-wrong.
|
| yes, I get that a lot just because I want to simply limit
| copyright terms down to its original 14/14 terms instead
| of the absurd 95 years or soemthing, or remove it
| entirely. 28 years happens to be most of a traditional
| career, so it seems fair for creators to benefit from
| their creation for assumedly the rest of their career and
| a bit into retirement before throwing it out for the
| public for others to iterate on.
|
| The general idea of "well companies can pay to license it
| out" hasn't worked out to well in hindsight. Lots of
| companies will happily sit on projects for years,
| decades, because sometimes denying others of a project is
| better than giving it out. I'd also be interested in some
| sort of "use it or lose it" clause of maybe 10 years or
| so to prove you have an actual proudct in production
| before an IP goes into the public domain. It'd also solve
| those weird licensing hells we run into as companies shut
| down, but I also see a few obvious loopholes to close.
| pjmlp wrote:
| That is exactly why on some countries there is an
| additional copy tax on that stuff.
| anthk wrote:
| Spain and Portugal. We hate the Spanish RIAA a lot (SGAE,
| sociedad general de autores y editores, I think it
| doesn't need a translation).
| pjmlp wrote:
| And France, Germany, and a couple of others.
| calgoo wrote:
| In a way, to me, this makes it "more legal" to rip
| copyright material as I'm forced to pay for it on every
| HD, usb, etc. i understand it's not, but if you are going
| to force me to pay a tax on any storage device, then I
| might as well get my value out of it.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Is it a coincidence every one of those pieces of tech
| have been under controversy? Yes, companies have been
| against easily copying their works for decades, and the
| laws are wishy washy until someone angry enough to
| challenge it rises up.
|
| But odds are, if you have that kind of money you benefit
| from keeping it vauge.
| naikrovek wrote:
| If people used emulators for homebrew there wouldn't be
| much of a fuss about it. But they don't, they use
| emulators for piracy.
|
| It doesn't matter if it has legitimate uses if 50%+ of
| the information online is about piracy and game dumping.
|
| Nintendo is gonna care and they're gonna try to stop
| these things, so long as their primary use is piracy. It
| doesn't matter that there are legitimate and legal use
| cases. There are zero people writing homebrew of any real
| value for any console platform newer than the SNES as far
| as I'm aware. There are lots and lots of toy applications
| in homebrew stores but nothing serious. LOTS of detailed
| and useful info about how to pirate games, though.
| boolemancer wrote:
| > and game dumping.
|
| Your argument is that legally purchasing a game and
| playing that in an emulator is piracy?
| naikrovek wrote:
| No, my argument is that the information on the web is
| about how to pirate games, no matter how it is couched in
| the tool documentation.
|
| The case for homebrew is in the homebrew software that is
| available, and all of the homebrew software that I have
| ever seen is absolute shite. Toy programs and simple SDK
| test tools, nothing of value other than the 3rd party
| SDKs themselves.
|
| It does not matter if you make a legitimate backup copy
| of a cart you own for safekeeping, emulation of
| legitimately owned copies of retail games is not an
| exemption of the DMCA.
|
| It doesn't matter if you own a copy of the game, making a
| copy for any reason is not in accordance with the DMCA,
| as far as I'm aware. Exemptions to the DMCA are granted
| every few years, and some exemptions are rescinded at the
| same time. Copying game cartridges has never been an
| exemption.
|
| And even if it was, you can't put your copy back onto a
| legitimate blank cartridge to regain playability if the
| original is destroyed.
|
| It's a shitty situation to be sure, and it is wholly
| unfair. Blame gamers who are "morally opposed" to paying
| for games that they play. There are a lot of them, and
| they play a lot of games, and are often popular streamers
| on YouTube and Twitch.
|
| If people stopped pirating games so much, the homebrew
| and legitimate use people would have a solid defense and
| maybe even support in government, but the amount of
| piracy that goes on absolutely dwarfs legitimate uses of
| unlocked hardware.
|
| I personally am fascinated with Nintendo hardware and the
| choices made when they design their systems, and despite
| repeated efforts to get a Switch dev kit, I have been
| denied approval time and time again. I have no interest
| in piracy, I have interest in hardware platforms. But I
| am in the _extremely small_ minority with that focus.
|
| If piracy slows somewhat dramatically, Nintendo won't be
| able to do this with impunity like they do today. They
| will simply not have a leg to stand on when they say
| emulators are purely piracy mechanisms. But today, they
| really are.
|
| How many new games come out for the SNES every year? How
| many SNES emulators are there under active development?
| Are you going to say that all of those emulators and all
| of that time spent making them and perfecting them,
| making them cycle-perfect is done so that 1-2 games can
| come out every 1-2 years? EMULATORS ARE PRIMARILY USED
| FOR PIRACY.
|
| Until that changes, Nintendo will keep doing this.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Selling a tool designed to circumvent DRM, even to make
| backups, seems straightforwardly illegal under the DMCA?
| I'm not sure that counts as an abuse of the law...
|
| Using it to shut down emulators that don't help you
| circumvent DRM does seem like an abuse, though.
| chewmieser wrote:
| MIG Flash Dumper
| jachee wrote:
| That doesn't fit the bill, as it seems to only be for
| "making backup copies", not interfacing directly with an
| emulator.
| choo-t wrote:
| You can play your backup on the emulator, and you can
| even make these backup through a modded Switch.
| jachee wrote:
| But that doesn't allow for this, the original assertion:
|
| > But IP law says nothing about interaction with already-
| existing copies.
|
| ...because it requires a separate copy.
| naikrovek wrote:
| You mean the one that Nintendo crushed and now has
| details on everyone who bought (or at least ordered) one?
|
| Sure those are just flying around where anyone can grab
| one.
|
| If you have a 1st hardware generation Switch you have all
| the dumping hardware you require anyway.
| 76SlashDolphin wrote:
| Huh? Last I checked you can still order them off
| AliExpress without an issue. And I highly doubt that
| Nintendo would go after the thousands of people who
| bought one after the big MIG Switch announcements.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| Thanks to the DMCA's anti circumvention provisions, it is
| sort of about copyright
| ls612 wrote:
| IP law more or less "worked" in the 20th century because
| of the first sale doctrine. Removing that is what led to
| the dystopian situation today.
| necovek wrote:
| "Intellectual property" is a meaningless term: GP is
| specifically referring to rules dictated by copyright laws,
| which generally allow one to do whatever they please with
| their "copy" for the most part (as long as they don't hurt
| the copyright holder's business through a couple of well
| defined "protections").
|
| Copyright laws were established when it became cheap to
| "copy" creative works, so creativity would continue to be
| stimulated by guaranteeing rewards for a set time (idea was
| not to guarantee getting filthy rich, just to make sure
| creation happens by keeping the authors fairly
| compensated).
|
| Digital "sales" are attempts to trick customers into
| thinking they are buying a copy when they are only getting
| a license, but this is unrelated to Nintendo killing
| emulators with an army of lawyers.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >"Intellectual property" is a meaningless term: GP is
| specifically referring to rules dictated by copyright
| laws, which generally allow one to do whatever they
| please with their "copy" for the most part (as long as
| they don't hurt the copyright holder's business through a
| couple of well defined "protections").
|
| And Nintendo isnt going after you if you make a copy.
| Only if you try to package it and sell it en masse. Which
| seems to be a reasonable protection of copyright.
|
| Regardles, it's not like any of us created a Nintendo
| Switch emulator, so we don't have much grounds here.
| Someone else distributed a tool that can be argued as
| used to bypass copyright and they are taking the heat for
| it.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Only if you try to package it and sell it en masse._
|
| Ryujinx wasn't being sold, it was being given away for
| free.
|
| _> Someone else distributed a tool that can be argued as
| used to bypass copyright_
|
| By this logic your entire computer is a tool to bypass
| copyright. An emulator is just a virtual machine, it
| doesn't contain any games or other copyrighted material.
| They are legal, despite Nintendo's mafioso scare tactics.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| "packaged and distributed en masses" is you want to be
| nitpicky. I don't get to get away with dealing illegal
| substances just because I give it away for free. Money
| simply puts a target on my back.
|
| >your entire computer is a tool to bypass copyright
|
| Reducto ad absurdum doesn't really work here. There are
| specific scopes and use cases taken into consideration
| when considering what tools or works are bypassing
| copyright. I cant claim Yuzu is the same as VMware in
| their use cases (especially when VMware had to work with
| Microsoft to have that be allowed. And why it can't
| legally distribute Mac OS Tom's freely).
| kibwen wrote:
| I must ask you to please stop commenting all over this
| thread if you have such demonstrably little idea what
| you're talking about.
| altruios wrote:
| I can run legally an mp3 through a calculator. No one can
| dictate otherwise - it's my machine, and purchased media to
| do with as I (privately) please. This does not interfere
| with copyright. To legislate otherwise would be insane - as
| that would effectively legislate your ability to calculate.
|
| This argument extends to any purchased media, to any
| program.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| If your mp3 is copy protected and your calculator
| bypasses that copy protection, it is in fact illegal (in
| the US)
| altruios wrote:
| Such a translation would be "format shifting" which is
| protected under US/UK law (IANAL).
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| I think you are correct in the case of an actual MP3 file
| and calculator.
|
| I was thinking they were metaphorical.
| altruios wrote:
| Not just a mp3 file. any media you have purchased can be
| format shifted by you for archive/personal purposes.
| regardless of DRM/copy protections. What is illegal is
| redistribution (thus the copyright).
|
| Again: ianal. But this is kind of a fundamental right. If
| you own something, it's yours to do with privately as you
| wish. If you don't own the copyright, then you can't
| redistribute.
| zerocrates wrote:
| The DMCA makes breaking DRM illegal, even when done for
| fair use purposes, if it doesn't fall into a small number
| of tightly-defined exceptions. And they can go after
| tools that enable people to do this, as well (think of
| DeCSS for example).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The US AHRA requires serial copy management (SCMS or an
| equivalent) when using format shifting to digital media.
| Nobody bothers to follow that part of the law and it
| seems to have never been enforced.
| textadventure wrote:
| There is no such thing as an mp3 being copy protected. A
| game on a cartridge is not "copy protected" either.
| karmajunkie wrote:
| unless i'm mistaken, nobody is telling you what to do
| with your media.
|
| the issue at play here would be whether the emulator
| publishers/developers have the right to publish what is
| almost certainly an infringing piece of software, which
| courts have repeatedly determined they do not.
| eptcyka wrote:
| How is an emulator infringing on the copyrights of
| Nintendo?
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| While an emulator does not infringe on copyright and is
| illegal per US court precedence, an emulator being
| available is a large part of what makes copyright
| infringement popular and as such it is related.
|
| Adding in the DMCAs anti-circumvention provisions and the
| fact that you have to violate them to emulate a modern
| console, the whole thing becomes very nuanced and tightly
| linked to copyright infringement despite not directly
| infringing.
| FMecha wrote:
| >While an emulator does not infringe on copyright and is
| illegal per US court precedence
|
| At least until Nintendo manages to overturn Sony v.
| Connectix, given recent SCOTUS trends.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Explaining that emulators can be used in concert with
| copyright infringement does not explain what right a
| copyright holder has over emulators.
|
| That merely explains why Nintendo doesn't like them, not
| why anyone should care that they don't like them.
|
| Cars may be used to commit bank robberies, yet banks have
| no rights over cars.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| > That merely explains why Nintendo doesn't like them,
| not why anyone should care that they don't like them
|
| I don't think it has been tested in courts yet but the
| general idea is that you _have_ to violate the DMCA to
| use a switch emulator, so people making switch emulators
| are making tools to help people circumvent the switch 's
| copy protection.
|
| Which is also a violation of the DMCA.
|
| Like I said, it is nuanced.
| ysofunny wrote:
| IP is an obsolete idea of a bygone century
|
| it arose from a legitimate answer to material scarcity, but
| it's nonesense in the digital space
|
| people who advocate for IP and DRM and all such thing are
| in the end advocating for scarcity.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| What do you say to people who want to stop using Open
| Source software licences and instead use 'Fair Source'
| licences intended to prevent cloud companies monetising
| the works of others?
|
| For instance, here's discussion about a blog post titled
| _So you want to compete with or replace open source_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40993787
|
| With no copyright, it would be akin to using permissive
| BSD-style licensing, which is by no means everyone's
| preference.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I don't agree with them, but i haven't seen the argument
| being pro scarcity. To steelman it, the argument is that
| without these protections the incentive to create is
| lower so we actually will have more scarcity
| Wytwwww wrote:
| So your position is that almost nobody who sells their
| content should be able to make a living doing that?
|
| You either must be able to fund it through ads, host it
| on platform which make piracy effectively impossible
| and/or impractical like Apple's App Store, YouTube etc.
| or be independently wealthy and just do it as a hobby?
|
| e.g. screw all the authors who are writing books, Amazon
| should just be able to distribute (or sell for some
| "convenience" fee) books to everyone who has a Kindle
| without paying anything to them? That (which would be the
| logical outcome of nothing having no IP protection)
| certainly sounds like a reasonable opinion..
| toolz wrote:
| In practice I agree with your points, but it's also
| important to consider that the open source model is
| alive, well and is directly and indirectly at the heart
| of employing many people. I won't make the argument that
| society is willing or could switch to that model
| successfully, but I also wouldn't be willing to say it
| couldn't work, either.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > consider that the open source model is alive
|
| Not everything revolves around software.
|
| Also even then OSS generally seems to only be universally
| successful in areas where software is a "cost centre"
| i.e. companies are willing to invest into it when it
| makes it cheaper for them run their business than
| building/buying proprietary stuff or they build their
| products on top of it (A but almost never when it's the
| actual end product targeted at consumers.
|
| And if we extend the definition of software to video
| games, OS is not even a thing there (besides middleware
| of course which falls into the previous category).
| choo-t wrote:
| other sources of revenue exist, lot of creators get their
| revenue through donation, either one time or recurring
| (monthly, yearly, by release).
|
| On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of
| dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > other sources of revenue exist > revenue through
| donation
|
| So what? Not everyone wants to engage in all of the
| PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money
| from that and it would still generally result in
| significantly lower revenue.
|
| > On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of
| dedicating
|
| And fund it how exactly? Even if that were sustainable
| why do you think that content creators should be fully
| content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while
| people working in most other industries should be able to
| money the same way they previously did?
|
| IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal
| way which of course should be improved) have been one of
| the primaries force behind human progress over that last
| 300+ years.
| choo-t wrote:
| > Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing
| stuff that's necessary to make any money from that
|
| That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already used to
| profit over IP work.
|
| > Even if that were sustainable why do you think that
| content creators should be fully content living of UBI +
| a few pennies in donations while people working in most
| other industries should be able to money the same way
| they previously did?
|
| This is assuming creators are fully content on how stuff
| work now, and I'm betting that's not the case for the
| vast majority, most of them cannot make end meets with
| the current system, regardless of how hard they work on
| their book/song/game/etc, and they have to have a side
| job just to put food on the table.
|
| > IP protection (even if often implemented in a
| suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have
| been one of the primaries force behind human progress
| over that last 300+ years.
|
| That's a bold claim. Most of, if not all, human progress
| on this period is directly attributable to the use of
| fossil fuel, from the steam engine to the modern use of
| it, and how it empowered us to do so much more with less
| human-hour.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| Piracy is product of artificial scarcity, people pirate
| mostly because it is easier and more convenient than the
| legitimate counterpart, music piracy almost disappeared
| when convenient streaming services appeared, same for
| movies until studios decided that they wanted "cable tv
| 2.0" Make something as easy as pirating and people will
| pay for it.
| adamc wrote:
| Convenient streaming services do not pay musicians a
| living wage for their work. It's basically still ripping
| them off.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Throwing away these abused IP laws wouldn't prevent
| creators from making a living off their art.
|
| Plenty of ways for artist to monetize. Selling a copy of
| the art is one way, very cherished by publishers.
| Creators for the most part don't make money off copy
| distribution of their art. That was the case with
| physical copies, still the case with online distribution.
|
| The good old "let's protect the artists" is a fallacy.
| It's only to protect publishers and distributors. These
| IP laws, at least their interpretation acts against the
| public interest, creators included.
|
| Other forms of monetisation of art? Performance, training
| and teaching, patronage, custom requests, etc.
|
| Ask Taylor Swift where most of her money is coming from,
| that's not from Spotify.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Emulating consoles that are no longer sold makes some
| sense.
|
| Emulating a console that already exists just feels wrong.
| Even if technically in the right.
|
| And it's hard to ignore, even when the emulator is in the
| right, 100% legal, 99.99% of people will simply be pirating
| their roms.
| craftkiller wrote:
| Well if we're going to dive into morality, requiring me
| to produce additional pollution and e-waste to run your
| program when I have a perfectly capable turing machine
| already is unconscionable.
|
| Nintendo: Put your games on steam. Let me buy them
| without killing the planet.
|
| Apple: License your damn operating system for running on
| non-apple hardware. Hell, just let me legally run it in
| an virtual machine so I can test my scripts on your OS
| without killing the planet.
| mightyham wrote:
| Nintendo's primary competitive advantage in the gaming
| space is it's expertise in hardware and tight integration
| of self-published games. Nintendo would have to
| fundamentally change it's business model and alter the
| design of their games (and consequently the unique appeal
| of them) in order to fit your demand.
|
| You are right about Apple though, simply allowing people
| to install their OS on other hardware for personal use
| would not impact their market strategy in any significant
| way.
| craftkiller wrote:
| I'd argue the success of the switch emulators proves
| their games can be successful without changes in the PC
| space. I'd certainly agree with you when it came to Wii-
| era games since that had the unusual controller[0] but
| the switch is a pretty standard controller.
|
| [0] Which they could have sold as first-party PC
| accessories, further capitalizing on the PC market
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| > Well if we're going to dive into morality, requiring me
| to produce additional pollution and e-waste to run your
| program when I have a perfectly capable turing machine
| already is unconscionable.
|
| This is not obvious to me - I would be interested in
| reading more about the ethical considerations here, if
| you or anyone else has any good links.
| craftkiller wrote:
| Links for what? The environmental damage of producing
| electronics?
|
| - Apple has a report for the environmental impact of an
| iphone, 81% of the carbon emissions is from the
| production of the device [0]
|
| - In addition to the whole global warming thing, there's
| the health impact [1].
|
| So here I am, typing this message out on a perfectly
| capable universal turing machine. But in order to run
| <nintendo game> I have to incur that 81% carbon emissions
| again to buy a different universal turing machine from
| Nintendo. One that will, after a few years, get thrown
| into the back of a closet where it will accumulate dust
| until one day I haul it down to electronics recycling
| where it can continue its journey poisoning the children.
|
| Its a simple matter of 1 device is less bad than 2.
| [0] https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone
| /iPhone_13_PER_Sept2021.pdf [1]
| https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
| sheets/detail/electronic-waste-(e-waste)
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| I was hoping for a more holistic analysis about nintendos
| business model, the environmental impact, and how the
| purchasers choice to not buy Nintendos hardware and
| software fits in. But it is interesting food for thought
| nonetheless.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| I disagree. In my case I want to play some of my legally
| acquired games in ways that were not possible on the
| original hardware. High FPS, widescreen support, VR,
| mods. I also want to play my games in a way that's
| convenient for me, like not having to hook up my console
| over its own dedicated HDMI. There's more to emulation
| than just piracy, it opens up a whole field of
| possibilities for the software.
| NotPractical wrote:
| Even so, there is no difference between games from the
| 80s and games released last week from the perspective of
| copyright law, which usually works in Nintendo's favor.
| cubefox wrote:
| > ultimately this is just another corporation trying to
| disturb people in their ownership of their purchased
| property, in specific video games.
|
| Is it reasonable to assume the majority of Ryujinx users
| merely emulate Switch games they legally own? That only a
| minority uses the emulator to play pirated Switch games?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I don't know why you are being downvoted. Of course
| emulators are being used to play pirated games.
| cheeze wrote:
| Yeah. It's a bummer because I actually own the games and
| just want to play them at 4k60 rather than on the weak HW
| of the Switch. But I understand why Nintendo would target
| emulators of a _current gen console_.
|
| To say that this is solely an attack on law abiding folks
| who own the game is... being willfully ignorant because
| you don't want to accept that a large percentage of
| installs are doing so for piracy.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Of course it's not _solely_ an attack on law abiding
| folks who own the game. But is _is_ an attack on them
| nonetheless. Its also an attack on open source, software
| freedom, and digital preservation. Further, assuming
| there were legal threats involved, its an abuse of the
| legal system to harass open source developers working on
| perfectly legal software. Emulators are also direct
| competition to Nintendo 's hardware, so you could see
| this as an anti-competitive move as well. There are
| _lots_ of problems with this, and they 're only _mostly_
| Nintendo 's fault.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It's also important to remember that emulators exist
| without ROMs.
|
| _All_ the code that 's in an emulator isn't infringing
| on any Nintendo's IP -- it's re-implementing Nintendo's
| hardware interface.
|
| That it can be used to make piracy easier is
| unfortunately, but isn't really the emulator developers'
| concern, given...
|
| There are substantial, legal, non-infringing uses.
|
| In most legal jurisdictions, thankfully you can't ban
| something useful just because it _might_ be used to
| commit a crime.
| cubefox wrote:
| But what if it is mainly used to commit a crime?
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| I feel like the blame mostly lies on people who pirate
| games. It's a sort of tragedy of the commons. We could
| have a better world (Nintendo not caring if we play
| switch games we bought at 4k60 on a PC) but people who
| pirate games mucked it up.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Apple doesn't need any laws to enforce the following:
|
| - you can't pirate App Store IAP
|
| - you can't pirate Apple News
|
| - you can't pirate Apple Arcade
|
| - you can't pirate iCloud storage and you can't upgrade phone
| storage space from anyone but Apple, and therefore the amount
| of data you can practicably store in the iOS ecosystem
|
| - it's impracticable to pirate App Store apps
|
| Okay, that's like 90% of Apple services revenue.
|
| Is Apple the only company allowed to make money? That's kind
| of what your position is: "the only permissible limitations
| are the ones that cannot be surmounted technologically." Why
| should the law be toothless in copyright protections, but not
| in other things? Because that is a Pro Apple position in
| disguise.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The law should have teeth and should say that DRM is
| actually illegal, or at the very least that circumventing
| it is legal.
|
| No matter how ludicrously long Disney manages to get
| copyright terms extended to, copyright does still expire,
| and there are even other exceptions such accessibility and
| military and emergency usage that trump copyright.
|
| But encryption never expires and does not care if it would
| save someones life to use some product in some unusual
| situation, so, it should either be illegal to sell an
| encrypted audiobook that can never be decrypted even 100
| years later when it is public domain, or at the very least,
| if it is to be legal to produce such a thing, then the
| trade-off is it is at least legal for anyone else to try to
| overcome it.
|
| How could drm risk anyone's life? I don't know but it isn't
| just protecting a movie from playing, it's baked into the
| hardware of devices and makes the entire device non-
| functional, like HDCP making a display not-display.
|
| Maybe a pdf has critical emergency information like how to
| sanitize water during an natural disater or war, or
| identify if a berry is safe or poisonous, but the only pdf
| you have happened to come from an expensive college course
| so you can't read it. Contrived examples will always sound
| contrived and dismissable but no particular example
| matters. The principle holds even without any examples. If
| a tv can fail to tv, then forget about if tvs are
| important, what matters is a tool can be arbitrarily and
| artificially rendered non-functional.
|
| The law should absolutely have teeth, but it should say
| something other than what it currently does, and have the
| teeth to enforce _that_.
| Narhem wrote:
| Could be an organization issue, when I think of a Nintendo
| Switch it should be organized under Bh not Gh. Especially
| with an emulator which doesn't get updates from Nintendo.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >disturb people in their ownership of their purchased
| property
|
| It's a nice utopic view, but I'd be surprised if more than
| 10% of the games emulated are also owned by the user. I'd be
| surprised if more than half the people using emulators ever
| owned a Switch to begin with.
|
| >Anyone who really thinks about this topic will start
| questioning why some company located on an island on the
| other side of the world should be dictating what I do or
| don't do with a cartridge or disc I paid for with my own
| money and which is in my possession.
|
| They don't really. If you made Ryujinx or Yuzu and kept it to
| yourself and maybe a few close friends, they'd never know nor
| care. But things get complicated when you post it on the
| public internet.
|
| >This is why it's important to claw back as much ownership in
| that space as possible. If you want things to move in the
| right direction, you should sign
| https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci if you're an EU citizen,
| or support them in any other way if you're not.
|
| I dont think even the EU wants to touch the matter of
| emulation. Precisely because they may discover many emulator
| users are pirates.
| Liquix wrote:
| > it's not a DMCA, it's not an issue with GitHub.
|
| glaring omission of the statement "it's not an issue with
| Nintendo". they have a reputation for relentlessly pursuing the
| creators of homebrew/emu projects like this. sometimes even
| going as far as contracting operatives to stalk hobby devs
| living outside of Japan. look up "nintendo ninjas"...
| devmor wrote:
| It was indeed Nintendo. They released a statement about 50
| minutes ago that the lead developer "agreed to stop working
| on the project" after speaking with Nintendo.
| tomcam wrote:
| Nice career you have there. Be a shame if something
| happened to it.
| jsheard wrote:
| RE: Update 3 (gdkchan being "encouraged" to step down)
|
| I'm mostly just surprised it took Nintendo this long to make a
| move - the Switch is on its last legs, its successor is less
| than a year away and almost certainly won't be hacked for a
| good while. Acting in a way that's bound to piss everyone off
| but doing it so late that the upside to them is minimal (there
| won't be that many more new Switch games to pirate at this
| point) is a weird unforced error. Lawyers move in mysterious
| ways I guess.
| textadventure wrote:
| Do you think the average joe who owns a Switch or is a
| potential client for their next console, is even aware of any
| of this happening? This is the tiniest of stories. The only
| way the public at large can become aware of emulators is if
| they hit a big app store.
|
| So as far as timing of this move goes, it's as good a time as
| any to "protect what's theirs".
| Lan wrote:
| I would assume the launch of the Switch successor is why they
| are clamping down. It's likely very similar architecturally
| to the Switch. Nobody knows how long it would take to hack
| it, someone could be silently sitting on an exploit that
| they've been saving to see if it'll work on the successor. In
| the event it's hacked quickly and there are still actively
| developed Switch emulators, it wouldn't be a stretch to
| believe support would quickly be added to those emulators for
| the successor.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| > Acting in a way that's bound to piss everyone off but doing
| it so late that the upside to them is minimal ... is a weird
| unforced error.
|
| This describes their response to Palworld (the
| Pokemon-"inspired" game that they're suing now) too. When
| Palworld came out, everyone was talking about how it
| blatantly copied things and how surprised they are that
| Nintendo is doing nothing. Now, after several months of
| people playing Palworld and many of them enjoying it,
| Nintendo is suddenly choosing to sue them. And predictably,
| the general response is a lot more negative now, with people
| having a lot more positive associations with Palworld and
| having gotten used to assuming that it's here-to-stay.
|
| > Lawyers move in mysterious ways I guess.
|
| Indeed. The timeline to build a case doesn't necessarily
| align with the business profit goals (like in the Switch
| case) nor with the public relations goals (like in the
| Palworld case).
| foobazgt wrote:
| Sadly, sometimes there's a perverse incentive for lawyers
| to intentionally delay lawsuits so that they can reap
| increased damages/penalties.
| nurettin wrote:
| Interesting, I wonder if this means that they got paid.
| ndiddy wrote:
| In case anyone's curious about Nintendo's general MO (not sure
| how similar this case is) around 10 years ago they successfully
| prevented someone from publishing a method to run arbitrary
| code on the 3DS using an NDA and the threat of legal action.
| Here's some documents detailing their approach:
| https://archive.org/details/Knock_And_Talk_directcontact/Kno...
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Given that Ryujinx is open source, I wonder what rights other
| OSS contributors have? Surely there's nothing stopping another
| fork from continued development provided nothing illegal is
| happening.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Even if you think/"know" the project to be 100% legit do you
| want to be the OSS contributor that spends the next year or
| two in court fighting Nintendo about it or did you just like
| writing some emulator code once in a while in your spare
| time?
| koolala wrote:
| A threat is not a natural 'agreement'.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Doesn't look to be DMCA'd see here for GitHub DMCA takedowns:
|
| https://github.com/github/dmca
|
| I wonder if they went after the maintainer directly.
| CryZe wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if they showed up at the maintainer's
| house even.
| ntqvm wrote:
| According to the Discord, that's exactly what they did.
| mrfinn wrote:
| Yet another chapter of Nintendo's wrath against the people? How
| long the world is going to be dominated by absurd copy(made
| up)right laws?
|
| PS. Even if that wouldn't be the case here, my POV stands.
| Current copy(made up)right laws don't even make tiny-little sense
| nowadays. FREEDOM NOW FOR HUMAN KNOWLEDGE once for all FGS.
| Sakos wrote:
| This is absolutely the case considering their insane lawsuit on
| Palworld, which is a _patent_ dispute. Nintendo has clearly
| turned evil and this is only going to cause great harm and
| strife in the gaming industry long-term if they win. We 've
| been largely free of patent trolling in gaming aside from the
| lawsuits against hardware technologies like vibration (which is
| itself insanity and harmful), but this would open the flood
| gates.
| gs17 wrote:
| > Nintendo has clearly turned evil
|
| They've been roughly like this for a long time. They're very
| protective of their IP.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Updating a software patent application and then suing a
| competitor to strip profits is Nintendo's _modus operandi_.
| There was one settled for $30m(then) as recent as 2021, just
| not known outside the country.
|
| 1: https://kotaku.com/nintendo-s-lawsuit-forces-japanese-dev-
| to...
| bitwize wrote:
| > Nintendo has clearly turned evil
|
| Astronaut 2: Always has been.
|
| See: Nintendo v. Galoob, Atari and Tengen v. Nintendo, their
| predatory in general business practices throughout the NES
| era.
|
| Just because Shigeru Miyamoto flashes his friendly Austin
| Powers grin and opens up another world of wonder playable on
| your Switch doesn't mean that the company doesn't or never
| had a dark side. Hell, the man himself cancelled StarFox 2 to
| pillage its 3D transform code for use in Super Mario 64.
| 7734128 wrote:
| Nintendo have been absolute monsters for a long time. The
| only thing preventing people from realizing this is the
| cognitive dissonance between their cute games and their evil
| behavior.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I think:
|
| - Nintendo was probably _always_ like that, since 80s or 40s or
| however long ago: they were merely dormant outside the home
| country due to the famously enormous language barrier.
|
| - Hypothetical defanged Nintendo that isn't like that probably
| holds little value: even Microsoft with -1 hardcoded as budget
| ceiling had been successful at forcing Nintendo into
| obsolescence. This suggests that Nintendo "being like that" is
| an advantage in itself.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Not sure about the 80s, but off the top of my head, there is
| clear evidence in the early 90s with lawsuits against both
| Galoob (game genie) and Atari (Tengen games without the 10NES
| chip).
| givinguflac wrote:
| Darn. I finally got pop os working the way I like and was about
| to set up my emulation stuff this weekend. Now Nintendo has
| successfully stopped me forever! /s
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| The only thing they've guaranteed is that I'll never buy
| another one of their consoles or games again. For context I
| only buy PC and Nintendo.
| mikae1 wrote:
| Doesn't matter what the reason is this time.
|
| Next time it will undoubtedly be DMCA considering what happened
| to Yuzu. This is the perfect case for some sort of decentralized
| Git[1] or a Git repo via Tor.
|
| [1] https://radicle.xyz
| square_usual wrote:
| What happened to Yuzu was that they took money to help people
| pirate a brand new game. I don't think that's a reasonable
| take.
| squigz wrote:
| I'm a big advocate of emulation (and piracy, frankly) but
| yeah, honestly, painting the Yuzu developers as the victims
| is insane. How much were they pulling in via Patreon? $30,000
| a month?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Mandatory reminder as well, to the emulation community,
| that $30K a month is probably enough to fund a legal
| defense...
| squigz wrote:
| Perhaps not against Nintendo, but yes.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| What's wrong with getting money out of a product? The fact
| that it was an emulator changes nothing. They would have
| been sued, Patreon or no Patreon. Making an emulator is not
| illegal. And I don't mean gray-area not illegal, I mean
| _court-precedent not illegal._
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > court-precedent not illegal
|
| Under precedents established before the DMCA was law, and
| under lawsuits filed before the DMCA was applicable, on
| consoles which did not have encryption on which the DMCA
| would have applied.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Correct, but the DMCA has an explicit exception for this
| kind of thing.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > Correct, but the DMCA has an explicit exception for
| this kind of thing.
|
| That has never been examined or declared, as the DMCA
| exemptions are much narrower than they appear. The
| reverse engineering exemption, for example, does not
| cover the right to make a product that interfaces with
| the original - only to examine the technology to build
| your own product.
|
| An obvious example of this is DVDs, which have the same
| exemptions. The US PTO, and the US Librarian of Congress
| (who has the power to make DMCA exemptions) are
| unequivocally clear that a private copying exemption does
| not exist in their view. This is also why the EFF has
| been begging every 3 years for the last... two decades...
| to make such an exemption, and has failed.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The reversing clause doesn't, but the law does.
|
| It's "declared" specifically in the Act, here:
|
| _(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
| (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right
| to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a
| technological measure that effectively controls access to
| a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose
| of identifying and analyzing those elements of the
| program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of
| an independently created computer program with other
| programs, and that have not previously been readily
| available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to
| the extent any such acts of identification and analysis
| do not constitute infringement under this title.
|
| (2)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2)
| and (b), a person may develop and employ technological
| means to circumvent a technological measure, or to
| circumvent protection afforded by a technological
| measure, in order to enable the identification and
| analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of
| enabling interoperability of an independently created
| computer program with other programs, if such means are
| necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent
| that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
| title.
|
| (3)The information acquired through the acts permitted
| under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under
| paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the
| person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case
| may be, provides such information or means solely for the
| purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently
| created computer program with other programs, and to the
| extent that doing so does not constitute infringement
| under this title or violate applicable law other than
| this section._
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Let's say your interpretation holds water even though I,
| and the EFF in their handbook
| [https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-
| fifteen-ye...], and the US legal system just a few months
| ago [https://www.pearlcohen.com/court-upholds-dmcas-anti-
| circumve...], do not believe is correct. (It's easy to be
| an armchair lawyer - if you read the first amendment out
| of context, threatening to kill someone seems protected.)
|
| Nintendo may potentially argue that yes, you are
| completely right. You have the right to interoperability,
| in the sense that you are allowed to make a device which
| physically takes Switch cards, decrypts them, plays them,
| from the original card, does not copy it to storage media
| of any kind, and does not allow the user any semblance of
| a DRM bypass, or any way to resell the original card
| while maintaining a copy. Interoperability is for
| building CD players, not CD rippers.
|
| EDIT TO REPLY FOR "POSTING TOO FAST": Section 117 is very
| clever, except there's one problem: It was created in
| 1980, before the DMCA. Thus, if there is a conflict
| between the DMCA and Section 117, the DMCA is likely to
| receive the benefit of the doubt. As such, Section 117 is
| only effective for demonstrating the legality of copying
| non encrypted programs, or (as an actual lawyer put it),
| copying a program with the DRM remaining intact, as
| useless as that is.
|
| Combine my point about interoperability in the courtroom
| + Section 117 likely being overruled by Section 1201 of
| the later DMCA which is extremely restrictive on
| bypassing "technological protection measures" copied or
| not, and it's not a clear win.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Let's say your interpretation holds water even though
| I, and the EFF in their handbook
| [https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-
| fifteen-ye...], and the US legal system just a few months
| ago [https://www.pearlcohen.com/court-upholds-dmcas-anti-
| circumve...], do not believe is correct.
|
| The case you linked to has nothing to do with the
| interoperability exception. I don't know how they could
| reject my view if they never touched it.
|
| Also
|
| > Nintendo may potentially argue that yes, you are
| completely right. You have the right to interoperability,
| in the sense that you are allowed to make a device which
| physically takes Switch cards, decrypts them, plays them,
| from the original card, does not copy it to storage media
| of any kind, and does not allow the user any semblance of
| a DRM bypass, or any way to resell the original card
| while maintaining a copy.
|
| And they would be right, if copyright law didn't have an
| additional exception...
|
| _17 U.S.C SS 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights:
| Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or
| Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--
|
| Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not
| an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
| program to make or authorize the making of another copy
| or adaptation of that computer program provided:
|
| (1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
| essential step in the utilization of the computer program
| in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no
| other manner, or
|
| (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
| purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed
| in the event that continued possession of the computer
| program should cease to be rightful._
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Reply to your edit:
|
| That's what the first exception in the DMCA itself is
| for. It provides that:
|
| 1. You can manually decrypt DRM'd content if it's
| software you own a legal copy of and you need to run it.
|
| 2. You can make an automated tool that does step 1.
|
| 3. You can share that tool with anyone as long as they
| respect 1.
|
| The DMCA DRM clauses only care about that, the DRM
| itself. Not whether you make a new copy of the content.
| ferbivore wrote:
| Does the Nintendo-Tropic Haze settlement not count as
| court precedent? It was signed off by a judge after all.
| NotPractical wrote:
| A settlement does not imply guilt or create legal
| precedent (AFAIK IAMNAL LOL).
| croes wrote:
| >they took money to help people pirate a brand new game
|
| That is where they went wrong
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with a team of people getting that
| much money to code an emulator.
| croes wrote:
| >they took money to help people pirate a brand new game
|
| That was the wrong part
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Yeah, but that's not the comment I was responding to.
|
| I understand the issue of making money drawing attention
| to the piracy they (supposedly?) participated in. But
| there is nothing wrong with the money they got for their
| development efforts. That money is not a counterpoint to
| them being victims, regardless of whether they actually
| are victims or not.
|
| I doubt any meaningful amount of it went to piracy, if
| any. If that's wrong, then okay I'll change my mind.
|
| And big citation needed that they had a money collection
| specifically for some instance of piracy.
| croes wrote:
| But the comments you were replying too agreed with the
| point I quoted.
|
| There is most likely a correlation between their Patreon
| donations and their helpfulness regarding games
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> painting the Yuzu developers as the victims is insane._
|
| Hope you're not thinking I'm the painter here... I know
| they turned the thing into big business and I don't have a
| lot of understanding for that.
|
| Realistically though, I expect Nintendo to find ways to
| wipe Ryujinx from Github and sue these developers too,
| considering people have turned to it now that Yuzu is gone.
|
| The only way to escape that fate would be to maintain
| proper opsec, stay in the right jurisdiction and not rely
| on (DMCA sensitive) big tech platforms for the development.
|
| EDIT: guess I was kind of right... Seems Nintendo succeeded
| with their goal:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712399
| tombert wrote:
| The lawsuits that effectively legalized console emulation
| in the 90s were commercial products, enabling you to play
| PlayStation games on your PC or DreamCast
|
| There's even a video of Steve Jobs showing off Connectix on
| the Ma..
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Computer_
| E...
| lcouturi wrote:
| The popular narrative seems to be that Yuzu had something to
| do and/or profited in some way from the Zelda Tears of the
| Kingdom leak, which isn't true. The Patreon-only Early Access
| builds could not play the game any more than the public
| Nightly builds could. Both versions needed an unofficial game
| patch for the game to launch, a patch which the Yuzu
| developers had nothing to do with. Yuzu developers also did
| not implement or work on any bug fixes involving the game
| before its official release. Perhaps you were alluding to
| something else, though.
| tombert wrote:
| I thought that there was also speculation of people sharing
| ROMs directly on Discord, with the Yuzu admins being pretty
| ambivalent about the whole thing?
|
| I only followed the story peripherally, so it's possible
| I'm wrong.
| CryZe wrote:
| The Yuzu devs banned anyone even mentioning TotK in the
| Discord. However, they apparently had some private
| Discord or something where the Yuzu devs shared ROMs
| between themselves.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| I thought they were sharing Nintendo encryption keys that
| are "technically" supposed to be from the Switch you're
| emulating. People were using Yuzu to turn their Steamdeck
| into a Switch and using Yuzu's private discord to get the
| keys needed to do that.
|
| It's the same reason other emulators ask you to bring your
| own BIOS file because that is proprietary.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| AFAIK, they were explicitly _not_ sharing those keys. You
| had to get your own. They provided instructions on how to
| copy them from your own hardware.
| 0xDEADFED5 wrote:
| I was there, this is true.
| asveikau wrote:
| > is the perfect case for some sort of decentralized Git
|
| This is exactly what git is made to be without any extra
| tooling on top.
| tshaddox wrote:
| AFAIK git doesn't concern itself with discoverability, which
| is presumably what OP means. Sure, if you already know the IP
| address of someone hosting a git repo you can pull it. But
| that's not really a decentralized service (or not any more
| decentralized than downloading stuff from a known host via
| HTTPS).
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| git is decentralized and can be served across anything,
| including tor.
| grzracz wrote:
| i think you don't know what decentralized means
| trufas wrote:
| You're conflating git with git forges. Most popular forges
| use a centralized model. Git was built as distributed from
| the start and it's original mode of collaboration was
| through a federated protocol.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| Some sort of decentralized Git.
|
| You mean Git?
| tombert wrote:
| I mean, nominally, but honestly how many of us _actually_ use
| Git in a distributed fashion? I think most of us treat Git
| more or less like Subversion with local committing and much
| better merging.
|
| I think what the person was referring to was something more
| along the lines of a DHT (e.g. Pastry or Kademlia), IPFS, or
| (as they mentioned) Tor, where it can be truly leaderless and
| owned by everyone and no one at the same time.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| I think what they meant was GitHub, not Git.
|
| A common conflation these days, and one GitHub works hard
| to reinforce.
| tombert wrote:
| Sure, but a vast majority of people who use Git will
| centralize it, with Gitlab, or Bitbucket, or SourceForge,
| even barring Github.
|
| While the git _program_ is allowed to be decentralized,
| pretty much everyone 's workflow is decidedly not.
| mtndew4brkfst wrote:
| Probably worth reminding that this is the project where the
| backing company is centered around crypto/blockchain, but they
| pinkie promise it will never affect this work!
|
| https://radicle.xyz/faq
|
| _Radworks, the organization that has been financing Radicle is
| organized around the RAD token which is a governance token on
| Ethereum._
|
| It gives off the same odor as Tea did, for me personally.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| git already is decentralised. GitHub isn't. But you can clone
| the git repository and mirror that as many places as you want.
| j_maffe wrote:
| git doesn't have discoverability or any kind of decentralized
| CDN service AFAIK.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| None of that are requirements for a version control system,
| let alone a distributed one.
|
| What people are after is a decentralised GitHub. Which I
| think is a good idea. But git itself is already built from
| the ground up to work decentralised.
|
| So if someone were to build a decentralised discovery
| service for git, then you could take any existing git
| repository, whether it's local copies on your laptop or
| "centralised" versions in GitHub, and use them equally as a
| seed.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| My niece tells me that decentralized Git is, well Git.
|
| As far as a web interface to Git, she was saying the basic
| pieces are kinda already there with Gitea, and provided the
| following points:
|
| - Gitea is a single executable, fairly easy to install at least
| on Linux (it does need a database), and while the configuration
| requires some time it's worth it for all that Gitea does -
| which is basically be a copy of Github.
|
| - Gitea has a migration option which will literally pull in an
| entire Git repo with one click.
|
| So my niece was telling me zany things like "why doesn't
| everyone run their own Gitea and simply cross migrate
| everything?" I don't know, I feel like it's dangerous and
| essentially providing easy tools and paraphernalia to potential
| evil doers, such as those who may want to infringe copyright,
| so this is an application I'll never host or run in my life.
| k__ wrote:
| If you want to avoid such a takedown, check out:
|
| https://protocol.land/
|
| https://radicle.xyz/
| ezfe wrote:
| It wasn't taken down by Github, it was seemingly taken down by
| the maintainers. Git already provides protection against this
| via local copies, so there's no benefit.
| k__ wrote:
| Data on protocol.land is permanent and can't be deleted.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| That sounds much worse for projects like this unless the
| authors go fully anonymous and always practice clean opsec.
|
| Nintendo probably sent them a deal along the lines of
| "Agree to take down the project or else we will sue you for
| millions of dollars". Could you imagine if you were served
| that and had to respond "it is impossible for me to take
| down the project because of the hosting I used."
|
| Even if it's a trial Ryujinx could win... Winning and trial
| isn't free, and you can often can't recoup attorney fees.
| ezfe wrote:
| Okay and I'm not sure maintainers want that
| mtndew4brkfst wrote:
| Not familiar with the first but the second is funded by a
| commercial company whose core focus is Ethereum-based, and
| they're making another cryptocurrency and caused a bunch of PR
| spammers the same way Tea did.
|
| https://radicle.xyz/faq https://docs.radworks.org/#projects
| https://www.drips.network/
| k__ wrote:
| Drips sounded like a reasonable idea to get builders funded.
| adzm wrote:
| YouTube accounts showing devices that emulate Nintendo games have
| been targeted recently as well
|
| https://www.timeextension.com/news/2024/10/nintendo-is-now-g...
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Ironically, this is the type of behavior that will make me STOP
| buying a company's products.
|
| They're obviously doing this because they think their losing
| sales - which they probably are on net. But I wish more people
| would stop buying products from companies that try to ruins
| people's literal lives over - essentially - a rounding error to
| the company's bottom line.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I haven't bought a Nintendo product in almost a decade. My
| life is better for it. Previously I avidly bought every MH,
| every Pokemon, would have bought the Digimon releases on
| Switch too. A fair portion of the recent Zeldas too. Nowadays
| I play pirated games on my 3DS and am quite happy, far
| happier than I had been paying Nintendo only to fuck over the
| things I enjoy. My impact may be small, but that hardly
| matters because at least I'm putting my (lack of) money where
| my mouth is.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I think this move hurts yourself more than the company. There
| are more level headed ways to go about it but this one ain't
| it
| asddubs wrote:
| for comparison, here's what a DMCAd repo looks like:
|
| https://github.com/yuzu-mirror/yuzu
| richard___ wrote:
| This is a non issue to most human beings
| tightbookkeeper wrote:
| Hope nothing happens to anything you have an interest in.
| textadventure wrote:
| That probably applies to like 90% of posts here.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Why not scroll on past then? Most posts here are technical or
| fairly specific, do you come to all the article comments and
| say they are irrelevant?
| alext54321 wrote:
| If nintendo could come into your hoise and smash all your old
| games consoles so you buy thr rerelease, they would do it.
| MarioMan wrote:
| I was shocked to learn there was a short period in the '90s
| when even reselling your physical games was outlawed in Japan.
| At the time, Nintendo put "no resale" icons on the back of all
| their games.
| favorited wrote:
| We'll be back to that same state of affairs, once physical
| game media is phased out. The PlayStation platform has gone
| from the PS4 (universal optical media) to the PS5 (cheaper
| model without optical media) to the PS5 Pro (no optical media
| without a separate accessory). Hell, it's already happened
| for PC games.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| > Yesterday, gdkchan was contacted by Nintendo and offered an
| agreement to stop working on the project, remove the organization
| and all related assets he's in control of. While awaiting
| confirmation on whether he would take this agreement, the
| organization has been removed, so I think it's safe to say what
| the outcome is. Rather than leave you with only panic and
| speculation, I decided to write this short message to give some
| closure.
|
| Taken from Discord announcement.
| dmonitor wrote:
| So they bribed him into taking down the project? That's
| certainly one way to go about it.
| moritzruth wrote:
| I also thought that at first, but they could have just
| threatened him with a lawsuit if he does not "agree".
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| Indeed, i would be very surprised if Nintendos offer was
| all carrot and no stick.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| It's probably a C&D.
| EasyMark wrote:
| More likely a verbal threat, take the $20k carrot or
| we'll see you in court over the next few years.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| this is why centralized "free" services like discord and github
| are a big risk to projects that exist in a legal gray area.
|
| hard to beat a physical server you own in a data center you have
| a contract with.
| textadventure wrote:
| Github didn't do anything here, it was the project owned who
| did: https://twitter.com/RyujinxEmu/status/1841188744126480428
|
| So the exact same thing would have happened with whomever owned
| the physical server.
| tester756 wrote:
| One of the most impressive C# code bases :(
| kcb wrote:
| Microsoft themselves have highlighted Ryujinx as an example of
| high performance modern .NET.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| I submitted a PR a couple months ago and was really pleasantly
| surprised at how accessible it was to contribute. No funny
| business, just `git clone` and open up Rider.
|
| I was only touching the frontend client (i.e. game library
| screen etc, not the actual emulation), but it took less than
| two weeks to go from zero-to-PR-submitted on a fairly complex
| refactor.
| jsheard wrote:
| The name Ryujinx is even a C# in-joke of sorts, early
| iterations of the emulator translated the Switches ARM code
| into .NET CIL bytecode and then used the standard .NET JIT,
| which is called _RyuJIT,_ to translate that to native code. NX
| was the Switches codename, so RyuJIT + NX, minus the T, makes
| Ryujinx.
|
| They eventually outgrew that approach and rolled their own JIT,
| but the name had stuck at that point.
| theragra wrote:
| Thanks a lot, you clarified my confusion about these two
| things
| hypeatei wrote:
| New update (from discord):
|
| > Yesterday, gdkchan was contacted by Nintendo and offered an
| agreement to stop working on the project, remove the organization
| and all related assets he's in control of. While awaiting
| confirmation on whether he would take this agreement, the
| organization has been removed, so I think it's safe to say what
| the outcome is. Rather than leave you with only panic and
| speculation, I decided to write this short message to give some
| closure.
|
| ...
| rcarmo wrote:
| Wow. When yuzu was taken down I wrote a script to automatically
| download the 5 latest releases of a few other emulators I use,
| and that included Ryujinx (so I do have the binaries for those,
| which will go into safekeeping).
|
| Now I wish I had set up a Gitea mirror as well, even though I
| would likely never build it myself.
|
| Edit: here's the script -
| https://gist.github.com/rcarmo/89afd64747fc909e80b29abc902c8...
|
| It is designed to be very low impact (I had it on a daily cron).
|
| Feel free to use it to ensure you can preserve the software you
| rely on. As far as I'm concerned, I'm _very_ sad that Nintendo
| has now made it impossible to enjoy my games on better hardware,
| and will probably focus on PC gaming henceforth (there are lots
| of nice indie games on Steam, like Dredge, which is my current
| favorite).
| rererereferred wrote:
| Do forks go away together with the original repository when
| it's removed from Github?
| bityard wrote:
| Edit: I guess I'm wrong, see reply
|
| If a repository is removed by Github in response to a DMCA
| request, yes.
|
| (But it's not clear that that's what happened here.)
| tjhorner wrote:
| The forks aren't actually automatically taken down in most
| cases. The claimant must list every individual fork in the
| claim. Which I love, because it's kind of petty but still
| following the DMCA to the letter.
|
| Here is an example[1] of the form claimants must fill out.
|
| > Each fork is a distinct repository and must be identified
| separately if you believe it is infringing and wish to have
| it taken down
|
| [1]: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/05/202
| 4-05-3...
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| IIRC it took them a couple months to get through all of
| the Yuzu forks after the initial DMCA and lawsuit. I
| doubt there were nearly as many forks of Ryujinx, though.
| ZeWaka wrote:
| Depends on which type of removal they do, but they can be
| yes.
| textadventure wrote:
| In this case it seems so, someone just uploaded the codebase
| again (archived): https://github.com/emmauss/Ryujinx
| mikae1 wrote:
| Codebase, but no releases...
| loufe wrote:
| 5 years out of date though, it would seem.
| Macha wrote:
| I actually do have a private gitea mirror setup after the yuzu
| takedown.
| maxglute wrote:
| I'm surprised RU or PRC doesn't throw some state sponsored
| program to break DRM to undermine Nintendo or Sony for shits and
| giggles. NKR did the Sony hack years back, would be nice if they
| put some team on playstation emulation.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I am strongly reconsidering buying a Switch 2 now. This is
| absolutely disgusting from Nintendo.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| Nintendo's behavior recently has guaranteed that I will never
| purchase another Nintendo product ever again. I'm exclusively
| pirating their games from now on, lol
| Janicc wrote:
| It's always morally correct to pirate Nintendo Games.
| pezezin wrote:
| Have you been living under a rock? Nintendo has been like this
| since the NES days.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Don't buy it, put money towards a PC system or card. I'm done
| with Nintendo after this. It takes a lot to make me skip out on
| Mario, but in the end Nintendo burned through all of my
| nostalgia for them from my childhood
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Nintendo Is Now Going After YouTube Accounts Which Show Its
| Games Being Emulated_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41708771
| EasyMark wrote:
| Well that seals the deal, never buying a Nintendo product
| again. I'm sure I don't matter to them but I'll help friends
| and family get more into PC and retro gaming if they want to
| pick my brain.
| sweeter wrote:
| This just affirms the idea that Nintendo doesn't care about
| legality, they are extremely litigious and will attack anything
| and everything they perceive to be as harmful to them whether it
| is actually harmful or not.
| bittwiddle wrote:
| So I understand wanting to build emulators so that people can
| continue to play their old games after the hardware fails. But in
| building an emulator for a current generation console, it seems
| likely that much of the audience is just interested in pirating
| the games.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| The Switch hardware is so underpowered that most games run a
| lot better (no framedrops, higher resolution) on PC.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| It doesn't matter what most people are doing, emulators are
| legal.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Legal or not, Nintendo will release its hounds and drown you
| in court fees. Personally, I'd rather not have to deal with
| this legal bullshit and stress in my life.
| Janicc wrote:
| Good. If there's one company that deserves to have their stuff
| pirated, it's Nintendo.
| textadventure wrote:
| Someone else re-uploaded the repo (archived):
| https://github.com/emmauss/Ryujinx
| hypeatei wrote:
| That doesn't look to be an up-to-date fork at all. Latest
| commit is from 5 years ago.
| sublimefire wrote:
| Look at other branches, e.g. arm_delegate_native was active
| yesterday
| guax wrote:
| Last master commit as of two days ago was very different: h
| ttps://web.archive.org/web/20240929032514/https://github.co
| ...
|
| So not a good fork either way since the builds were made
| out of master.
| morserer wrote:
| 5 years old :(
| guax wrote:
| I always though switch emulation got too good too fast. Switch
| being such weak hardware you can emulate it on a potato. Nintendo
| must've been eyeing an angle to close Ryujinx for a while now.
|
| It would be very interesting if the main dev actually got paid to
| delete everything. Although it looks like a "dick move" at first,
| if you know the source will live on and you get retirement money.
| I would be very pressed to accept if in that situation. Much more
| likely they just offered to not sue him to oblivion.
|
| I honestly don't blame Nintendo for angling emulators with
| everything they have while the hardware is current. They have
| much shittier behaviour when interacting with the community, like
| suing tournaments that used mods and threatening others.
| bluescrn wrote:
| I'm wondering if the anticipated Switch 2 is going to be very
| similar to the current device in terms of architecture and OS,
| and the real concern of Nintendo isn't Switch 1 piracy right
| now, it's that the current Switch emulators could evolve into
| Switch 2 emulators in the early months/years of the new
| hardware lifecycle, emulators able to play ripped Switch 2
| games well before anyone figures out how to mod the new
| hardware to enable piracy.
|
| But they probably also want to re-sell us previous games, too,
| particularly if they can run 'remastered' versions of the
| Switch Zelda games at a better resolution/framerate on the new
| hardware - which you can already to via emulation...
| guax wrote:
| I am sure the Switch 2 is just a more powerful switch. Still
| massively underpowered compared to a PC so updating the
| emulators to run switch 2 would be a fast affair considering
| how easy people were able to dump the first one. Its likely
| just a "switch pro" iteration that the OLED never was.
|
| Its likely inevitable considering the hunger for pirated
| nintendo games on markets like Brazil with a large supply of
| competent hackers and not much chance of people being able to
| afford legit games.
| nephy wrote:
| These projects really need to start standing up their own Gitea
| or Gitlab instances and mirroring to GitHub.
|
| It also cracks me up every time I see legalistic apologists on
| this website backing up giant corporations.
|
| A) Who cares about the law? It's rarely moral. B) Which laws
| should we follow? The internet exists in every country.
| haunter wrote:
| Probably because of the backwards compability of Switch 2. Just
| imagine emulators outperforming bc games, which of course will
| happen lol
| mikae1 wrote:
| Here's a recent (unofficial) AppImage for future use...
|
| https://web.archive.org/save/https://github.com/Samueru-sama...
|
| EDIT: it's not the latest. 1.1.1403 is the latest.
| rcarmo wrote:
| Someone should mirror the flatpaks
| mikae1 wrote:
| Just upgraded the Flathub flatpak to the latest version on my
| machine. Not sure what's the recommended way to keep two
| stray Flatpak apps alive.
|
| I have the latest Yuzu flatpak installed on one machine and
| the latest Ryujinx flatpak on another. How do I save them for
| the future and migrate them to a new machine?
|
| https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/flatpak-command-
| reference... ?
| rcarmo wrote:
| flatpak build-bundle /var/lib/flatpak/repo
| org.ryujinx.Ryujinx.VERSION.flatpak org.ryujinx.Ryujinx
| stable is what you need.
| haunter wrote:
| Windows latest is on Archive.org
|
| https://archive.org/details/ryujinx-1.1.1403-win_x64
| harislubisdev wrote:
| Consolidated in https://rentry.co/ryujinx (Windows and macOS)
| espinielli wrote:
| The forks from the listed co-developers are still available...and
| some of them pretty recent
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I would bet serious money that this is because of the upcoming
| Switch 2. If the rumors are true, it could very much be like how
| the Dolphin emulator is able to run both Gamecube and Wii games
| because the system architectures are so similar. Nintendo wants
| to avoid a day-zero emulator for Switch 2.
| zamadatix wrote:
| And even if it wasn't a day-zero (or even several month in)
| Switch 2 emulator it's seeming like one of the big selling
| points of the new system is going to be "play your old Switch
| games on the new system, now in higher resolution" but it's a
| lot of bad press if that's still "play them in worse quality
| than emulators were 3 years before this hardware came out".
| neonsunset wrote:
| This is absolutely terrible. It may be in the business interest
| of Nintendo but the absolute anti-consumer way this is carried
| out destroys all the good will that the customers still had
| towards them.
|
| It seems someone hosts a mirror:
| https://git.naxdy.org/Mirror/Ryujinx/
|
| I was able to build the project with a single command, so there's
| hope that easy barrier for entry and a language more developers
| are familiar with will ensure the survival.
| jdright wrote:
| Nintendo must be getting ready to launch the next generation,
| which by targeting Switch emulators may signal that Switch 2 is
| not that far from it.
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| Modern Vintage Gamer (MVG) has a video out already about this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9JZW7hDBK8.
| tombert wrote:
| I wonder how far this will go. Is Nintendo going to send a cease
| and desist for the MiSTer project?
|
| Probably not, pretty much all those cores would be for machines
| where patents have fully expired, but who the hell knows?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The emulator can play 99% of the games, talk about closing the
| barn doors after..
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-01 23:01 UTC)