Nintendo Admits Emulators Are Legal Despite Crackdown (androidauthority.com) 32
Nintendo's top intellectual property lawyer has acknowledged that video game emulators are technically legal, even as the company continues to shut down popular emulation projects worldwide. Speaking at the Tokyo eSports Festa, Koji Nishiura, deputy general manager of Nintendo's intellectual property department, said emulators violate the law only when they bypass encryption, copy copyrighted console programs, or direct users to pirated material. The statement comes after Nintendo forced the closure of several major emulation projects last year, including Yuzu, Citra, and Ryujinx.
cruel... but fair (Score:4, Funny)
"But he nailed your head to a coffee table!" ... well yeah he did that, but I deserved it!"
"No no no... he didn't do
It's the games, stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course emulators are perfectly legal. It's the act of copying the games that is not. Games are covered by copyright and without a license from the copyright holder, making a copy to use in an emulator is illegal.
Re:It's the games, stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BIOS is software, you don't own the software, you only have a license, which you likely agreed to without reading it. The license does not allow you to make copies, including for your own use. The copyright law gives you no rights since you don't own the software.
There are some exceptions to copyright, which vary depending on your jurisdiction. For instance, you may be allowed a backup copy, but it doesn't mean you are allowed to run it in an emulator. Talk to your lawyer if you want to know.
The console
In USA, start with 17 USC 117 (Score:2)
There are some exceptions to copyright, which vary depending on your jurisdiction.
For example, under the law of Slashdot's home country, the owner of a copy has the carveout described listed in 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu], which includes the right to make additional copies or adaptations required to use the program on a different machine. (A "copy" is a physical medium on which a copyrighted computer program is recorded.)
Re: (Score:2)
And sometimes it's a snag. Ie, there's a game I want that's never been ported. A popular game, not even that old. So now there's an emulator for that console, and the game is said to work quite well with some tweaking. The snag though... You need the game, and you need it converted to a binary format. I can only buy the game apparently from the console, or at least you can't download it without the console, unless I find some really old DVD that doesn't have all the patches and updates. The conversion
Re: (Score:2)
Of course emulators are perfectly legal. It's the act of copying the games that is not. Games are covered by copyright and without a license from the copyright holder, making a copy to use in an emulator is illegal.
Actually, at least in the U.S., making a copy as a necessary step in running a piece of software is per se legal (17 U.S.C. section 117) as a black-and-white fair use exception. There's no rational reason to believe that this doesn't apply to copying ROMs from a cartridge that you own to execute them on an emulator; the law does not specify that such a process must be automated to qualify for the fair use exception.
What likely isn't legal is downloading a copy of those ROMs from someone else. (This is lik
UMG Recordings v. MP3.com (Score:2)
What likely isn't legal is downloading a copy of those ROMs from someone else. (This is likely true even if you own the original, although I don't know if that theory has actually ever been tested in court.)
It has been tested. UMG Recordings v. MP3.com established that private copying carveouts, such as the Audio Home Recording Act and 17 USC 117, do not apply to downloading a second copy of a work from the Internet.
There aught to be a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There aught to be a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly copyrights need to be a quicker removal from software that is written for a specific hardware platform that is no longer in production, I'm thinking like 5 years.
I'd argue that if the copyrighted item (be it software, books, etc.) isn't being commercially sold by a proper licensee anymore, it should be fair game to acquire it by whatever means possible (as long as it's not "sold" by anyone not licensed to do so).
The copyright argument has always been any that any 'unauthorized copying' will "rob" the creators of revenue, but that becomes bullshit if it's not available to be acquired legitimately when there is legitimate demand for it.
more obligations on holder (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There aught to be a law (Score:5, Interesting)
Coincidentally the only thing stopping Nintendo or other companies from offering a digital copy of any older games are copyright issues and in some cases no clear indication who actually owns the rights to some title. Since emulator developers have no way of getting a revenue stream outside of donations they will always be at the mercy of the companies that can afford a legal department. Politicians have very little incentive to modify the laws in any way that would be friendly to users of emulators, even if that were limited to people who weren't using them to avoid paying for games.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say it's dead.
for one, if you have a physical copy of the software/game cartridge but the hardware has failed then I would say it's 'fair use' to emulate that product so that you can continue the use of the license purchased. Having it available on virtual console means re-licensing a work-a-like.
However, I think the point of the poster's comment was that anything deemed abandonware should enter a sort of public-domain type use. I understand the purpose of copyright for monetization, but once t
Re: There aught to be a law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reasoning behind copyright, at least in Common law jurisdictions was to advance learning by granting a time limited monopoly, this is even stated in the US Constitution (the arts and sciences was basically all advanced education in the 18th century). Seems the sooner that works become public domain, the better for advancing education and since the monopoly was only granted for a short time for the creator to profit, no profit, no copyright.
The first copyright act's full title was,
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd argue that if the copyrighted item (be it software, books, etc.) isn't being commercially sold by a proper licensee anymore, it should be fair game to acquire it by whatever means possible (as long as it's not "sold" by anyone not licensed to do so)."
All creative works are under copyright form the moment of creation. You rule would mean I would be permitted to post the frightening verse you wrote as a teenager but keep locked in a drawer.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea that copy rights should come with copy responsibilities. That is, in order to enjoy the protections provided by copyright, holders need to actively make their works available. As it applies to emulation, this would eliminate the risk surrounding things like abandoned works and bios code.
While this will never happen, given that DRM has the potential to restrict the public's access to future public domain works and infringes on their right to fair use, that works protected by DRM forfeit copy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly copyrights need to be a quicker removal from software that is written for a specific hardware platform that is no longer in production, I'm thinking like 5 years.
That's absurd. The fact that you chose to not actively exercise your property rights for a prolonged time IS, in itself, exercising your property rights. Not a prelude to being stripped of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Squatters rights (adverse possession) are a thing in some jurisdictions. Looks like the majority of States (30) with some such as Arizona, Texas, Montana, and California having periods of 5 years or shorter while Wisconsin is 20 years and doesn't require anything besides occupation, most of the others do require the squatter to pay taxes.
So yes, not actively exercising your property rights for a prolonged time (3 years in Arizona) IS in itself, a reason for others to take ownership of your property if they'
So licence the roms (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo does not want to become a nostalgia company.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they do that, they can't keep selling you copies, as they already have been.
"Nintendo's top intellectual property lawyer..." (Score:2)
Has acknowledged what all of us have known for decades.
Cool. Can we sue them for all the lies they've peddled all this time?
nintendo needs to stop ignoring PCMR (Score:1)
nintendo needs to be on PC, with an app, store, emulation, native builds, true community support, the works. it probably will never happen, but it would be really cool if nintendo had the philosophical shift required to make the change.
being on steam would be even cooler but thats even less likely to happen.