392
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
392 points (99.5% liked)
Open Source
31679 readers
462 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
He never said that creating an emulator was illegal. He said that Nintendo is legally in the clear to do what they did. In Yuzu's case, Nintendo sued and both parties settled, and they reached an "agreement" with Ryujinx to take down its emulator.
As far as I'm aware, the Yuzu case isn't settled law as it calls into question whether the use of dumped keys to "bypass" copy protections is legal under the DMCA. This question isn't about emulation, even if it's a step required for emulation to be possible.
Since there are many issues with copyright law right now, corporations have a free pass to bully people in a multitude of ways, and the Yuzu lawsuit and Ryujinx "agreement" are just new ways of doing the same thing. All OP is saying is that lawmakers need to re-create copyright and IP laws to make them more fair and make sense so that content creators and/or homebrew devs and/or fangame creators and/or emulator devs can do their work with a far less shaky legal foundation.
And Elon Musk was "legally in the clear" to sue a trade group into non-existence over the idea that companies deciding to boycott his site independently was collusion.
I am objecting loudly and powerfully to "legally in the clear" being equated with "acceptable" or "within the spirit of the law."
Make no mistake. As far as we know, this is only legally in the clear because the developers are unable to fight it. That does NOT make Nintendo's action correct. By LAW the developers are in the right, they simply cannot afford to defend themselves. If your claim is that it is technically legal to threaten to sue anybody you want, you are correct and also terrifyingly shortsighted. Inability of someone to defend their rights for financial reasons is a miscarriage of justice. Given the options of smugly pointing out the technical situation or ranting about the injustice, I'll take the latter.
Let's put it another way... You're absolutely right. Nintendo is LEGALLY in the right to bully someone into submission using the threat of a lawsuit they cannot afford with overwhelming money. The legal system can't touch them.
But that means the ONLY place where Nintendo will EVER face ANY kind of consequences is in the court of public opinion, so why on EARTH would your take on the situation be, "Oh well... nothing we can do." It's not much, but it's the ONLY lever you have, and to relinquish it is fatalistic, shortsighted, and overall inconceivable as a strategy.
Where did I say "oh well, nothing we can do?" You're literally tying random arguments to my name.
Nobody here made the argument that what is legal is exactly what is fair. Nobody here made the argument that Nintendo being overly litigious is a good thing. The only argument made is that copyright law is flawed because companies abuse it and that lawmakers need to fix it.
You've said that, but this doesn't seem to be a copyright issue. As far as I know, Ryujinx used NONE of Nintendo's proprietary material whatsoever. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I'm seeing isn't an IP issue at all - it's simple strong-arming.
The initial argument that started all of this chain was a statement that Nintendo was understandable in their legal action, and I took and STILL take issue with that.
"They are absolutely within their rights to approach the developers of Ryujinx and threaten to sue them."
While this is TECHNICALLY true in the most literal sense of the word, it carries the implication that there is something justifiable at some level about the actions they've taken.
My response is it's correct in only the most pedantic sense, THIS is the element I find egregious for how much it understates just how disgusting Nintendo's actions are. This is nothing more than a mafia shakedown with lawyers instead of grunts, and to play it down like that is improper.
IP, copyright, shutting down streamers... all of this is a totally separate issue, and all of THAT activity is actually SUPPORTED by law.
Shutting down Ryujinx is on a massively different level. It's neither a copyright issue OR a legality issue. It's a direct strong-arming contrary to established law, and THAT is what this thread is about. There are other articles to discuss IP and content creators, which are a completely different issue with different repercussions.