• Rustmilian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Objection hearsay! Some jackass on Twitter saying some crap without proof is not proof. We need screenshots of the actual incidents at the minimum.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Your confusing the product and the creators of it.

        They are one and the same. If you knew where to look, they provided means. This is one case that didn’t even make it to discovery before settling, that just tells you how fucked they were and how wrong they did everything.

        What’s wrong with Twitter? You could also just google this and find the information yourself, don’t know why I have to provide what should be common knowledge on this subject. They were not a legal emulator, full stop, sorry.

        • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          8 months ago

          They are one and the same. If you knew where to look, they provided means.

          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.

          What’s wrong with Twitter? You could also just google this and find the information yourself, don’t know why I have to provide what should be common knowledge on this subject.

          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?

          They were not a legal emulator, full stop, sorry.

          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.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

            • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              they didn’t reverse engineer the key they used

              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.

              Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.

              Section 107 of the Copyright Act establishes the fair use exception, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research”.

              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.

              Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.

              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.

              And the Twitter thread had the sources

              Twitter doesn’t allow us to reverse the thread, kindly link the exact source you’re referring to.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                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.

                • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  How can you make and test an emulator without a key…? Or roms…?

                  By home brewing a legally purchase switch obviously.

                  They didn’t reverse engineer the key, that’s the issue they had their publicly ripped key in a Google folder.

                  Where’s the proof they were distributing a key?
                  You still fail to provide any proof.

                  So… how did they legally test their reverse engineered emulator… without their own key or roms?

                  Again, by home brewing a legally purchased switch. Which again, is protected by section 107.

                  There’s far more to this story than what yuzu and the commits say.

                  Then provide actual fucking evidence like you’ve been told to countless times already.
                  Stop with the fucking heresay already.

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    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.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Queues arguement doesn’t work since they didn’t reverse engineer their key….

            I’m not defending Nintendo, I am providing information on the subject, it just unfortunately only looks bad for one side here. I even said legal emulation has its place…. So how am I “shill” and “defending” Nintendo? Because I proved you are fucking wrong? Lmfao. Why is THAT always the comeback in this scenarios?