802
You're treading a fine line Mr. Tim Apple
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
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 11 Apr 2024
802 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
45745 readers
1722 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Tools are agnostic to their use. Tools do not have a preference how they are used. Hammers that are used are agnostic to if they are hammering a nail into a wall or caving in a skull. Yuzu would work exactly the same if you dumped your own carts. Same for emulators for Genesis and Atari 2600 and PlayStation.
If you make a claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how these things work. You say a claim, you give us the proof. And I can say on Twitter "Yuzu was 100000% legal and Nintendo actually is the real illegal operation". Now that's a valid source too, right?
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
Sorry but that biggest technology legal experts and defenders of the little guys who get sued by the big companies you polish the boots with your tongue strongly prove you wrong.
Uhhh they didn’t reverse engineer the key they used, that’s the entire stickler here…..
And the Twitter thread had the sources, so why are you saying the onus is on me? I provided it, even though it should be common knowledge.
Stop peddling that stupid lie already. They didn't use any key period; we literally have backups of the entire GPL source code will all of the commit history dating all the way back to August 30, 2013, stop spewing bullshit out your mouth.
You had to rip your own key from your own legally purchased switch hardware using legally protected homebrew tools and manually add it to Yuzu configs.This process is protected under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
Clean Room design reverse engineering for the purpose of creating an Emulator falls under "research" as listed by section 107 and independent creation as protected by existing judicial precedents.
Meaning Clean Room design reverse engineering as independent creation & modifying your legally purchased hardware with homebrew tools as fair use being protected by existing judicial precedents is also in turn protected by Section 107.
Twitter doesn't allow us to reverse the thread, kindly link the exact source you're referring to.
How can you make and test an emulator without a key…? Or roms…?
They didn’t reverse engineer the key, that’s the issue they had their publicly ripped key in a Google folder.
So… how did they legally test their reverse engineered emulator… without their own key or roms?
There’s far more to this story than what yuzu and the commits say.
By home brewing a legally purchase switch obviously.
Where's the proof they were distributing a key?
You still fail to provide any proof.
Again, by home brewing a legally purchased switch. Which again, is protected by section 107.
Then provide actual fucking evidence like you've been told to countless times already.
Stop with the fucking heresay already.
Which they didn’t do since their ripped key was in a google drive (it was someone else’s key) and they had folders full of illegal roms….
You would also need to know how decode and use that key, it’s not just taking a key and suddenly you have a working emulator, you can’t be serious about this are you…?
That’s not how you make an emulator and claim game preservation, sorry. Yuzu got sued and didn’t even make it to discovery, since they had nothing to stand on…. Since they had an illegal bios key and game roms.
Again, provide proof or kindly STFU.
Please learn how the fuck clean room design reverse engineering works. It's a 2 team operation were one team uses reverse engineering methods to write spec documentation without any code at all, then another team without access to copyright content using the that spec documentation to build out the actual code. This again is already deamed independent creation under section 107.
Yet again. Provide proof.
They had TOTK working on their emulator before the game released. How did they get they key, and test and update their emulator with legally acquired clean room techniques…?
Sure, if you ignore the mountain of evidence, they did things kinda right. The proof is right there if you don’t just choose to ignore it since it doesn’t align with your bias….
And everything is deleted and scrubbed, the only thing you’ll find is posts and articles talking about it now.
You fundamentally misunderstand how emulators work. Emulators are the recreation of the actual spec of the hardware itself in software. They do not need some unique key for TOTK to work as the hardware itself is what's being emulated not some encryption key pulled of the hardware. All the key does is decode the ROMs encryption so it can be run by the hardware and inturn the emulator that's mimicking the hardware. Literally any encryption key dumped from any homebrew'd switch can decode TOTK. Not once did Yuzu access TOTK ROMs files, more over the TOTK ROMs was leaked by a 3rd party with no connection to Yuzu.
They did multiple things illegally, yet you want to still believe that they did this one specific thing correct…? While everything else they did wasnt…? What have they done correct to make you believe that this was also done “by the book”…?
The key that they were caught with (the one they would have given someone to clean room with) was illegally acquired. So sure they may have clean roomed it, but they acquired the original illegally, which means the software itself, before everything else, wasn’t done correctly as well. So they couldn’t use that defense like other lawsuits, so that’s why they settled out of court before discovery, since discovery would have made it far worse for them and other developers.
They fucked up, but sure defend them I guess?
Where is the proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key? Actually. Even if they acquired a key without homebrew, it still doesn't qualify as copyright infringement, that only comes into play if they were publicly distributing an illegally acquired key. Which you've yet to provide any evidence of. Again, provide literally any screenshots of them disturbing an illegally acquired key.
And again the goalposts get moved.
Why are you blindly defending Yuzu who have done every other step of this illegally and wrong? It’s honestly quite sad.
Nintendo is scum, but that doesn’t mean Yuzu also isn’t in the wrong, or does this possibility not exist here….?
I'm asking for proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key and were illegally distributing said key. All sources I've found state that the Yuzu devs used "prod.keys" obtained from legitimate Switch hardware for internal use and didn't publicly distribute any said keys. The said many sources even state that they provided directions on how to obtain your own key which isn't illegal and is in favor of them not distributing keys. This is also backed by the Yuzu source code persevered in the previously provided mirror and Yuzu website preserved here and by wayback machine.
Your failer to provide literally any source at all points to you being a biased corrupt source.
https://www.wired.com/story/nintendo-yuzu-emulator-lawsuit-piracy/
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/how-strong-is-nintendos-legal-case-against-switch-emulator-yuzu/
Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
What's wrong? Can't defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.