Nintendo Admits Emulators Are Legal Despite Crackdown

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

[guygo]

"But he nailed your head to a coffee table!"
"No no no... he didn't do ... well yeah he did that, but I deserved it!"

It's the games, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Rinnon]

Unless I am mistaken, copyright would also extend to any code written for the hardware, such as a BIOS. Reverse engineering the hardware and then writing a custom BIOS is fair game; but many emulators require a version of the official BIOS to run. I'm not certain as to the legality of dumping a BIOS file from a console you legitimately own; someone more knowledgeable might be able to offer that tidbit. Offering the original BIOS for download would still be copyright infringement.

Re:

[mmdurrant]

It's my console, right? So I own it and all the data in it. I can't distribute copies to others but I can make copies for my own use. That's what copyright law says.

Re:

[wed128]

So of all the people who are emulating a Nintendo switch, how many of them opened up a console they own, connected probes to an eeprom, and ripped the BIOS? I expect most didn't...

Re:

[Rinnon]

I agree, one can certainly infer that piracy is taking place; which is probably why Nintendo uses the classic legal strategy known as the "shotgun" approach, where you just sue whoever you can and see what shakes out. The burden to prove that any given defendant DID in fact infringe copyright should theoretically fall on Nintendo, but as has been demonstrated repeatedly, it is very difficult for a small team with little to no resources to battle a giant international corporation with a team of high priced

Re:

[GuB-42]

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

There aught to be a law

[sls1j]

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.

Re:There aught to be a law

[Sebby]

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

[FeelGood314]

I might not go so far as if you aren't still selling something but I would say that if you CAN'T sell a copyrighted material anymore then you lose the copyright. So if the hardware no longer exists and no emulation that the copy right holder has access to is available the copyright is void. There should definitely be a requirement of copyright that when the copyright expires that the work be released to the public. So if the BBC does not have a copy of a doctor who episode not only should they lose the

Re:There aught to be a law

[alvinrod]

With the advent of the VirtualConsole on the Wii, this argument is effectively dead. At one point it was impractical to manufacture new copies of games because it meant having to crank out new cartridges or other physical media for a hardware platform that was also no longer being manufactured just to compete against a used market that made that action unprofitable. Now these companies can sell digit copies in perpetuity for relatively little cost and utilize DRM to eliminate any used market.

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:

[itzdandy]

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

[PsychoSlashDot]

They'll just leave every product "for sale", but with a price of "four solar masses of diamond" or something.

Re:

[narcc]

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:

[Turkinolith]

Gotta fight the mouse for that one.

Re:

[dnaumov]

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.

So licence the roms

[xack]

Instead of putting them behind proprietary mini consoles or subscription services. If Nintendo let me buy a Mario 64 rom legally i would buy it. I've already purchased Mario 64 for the original N64, for the ds, for wii virtual console and for 3d all stars, I deserve to have a rom licence.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Nintendo does not want to become a nostalgia company.

Re:

[MachineShedFred]

If they do that, they can't keep selling you copies, as they already have been.