251–260 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way people on YouTube get around the legal penalties for false DMCAs is simple: they don't file a DMCA request. There are several other mechanisms by which YouTube will gladly pull content: Content ID, contractual obligations, TOS violation, etc.
I still don't understand why Google went on the route of proactively removing content rather than reactively.
There's a really surprising amount of confusion in these comments about how copyright (at least in the US) works. More confusion than I expected to see on a site like Hackernews. Emulators are legal, including emulators for current-gen systems. Switch emulation is exactly as legal as Gameboy emulation. You can argue current-gen emulators are irresponsible, you can say they're mostly used for piracy, but Nintendo does…
I know you're talking about emulators, not ROMs. But it's also worth mentioning that the legality of Switch ROMs actually is quite different from Game Boy ROMs. I was recently surprised to discover archive.org has ROMs for older systems - IANAL, but apparently this is covered by a DMCA exemption for obsolete formats [1]. Also, Switch ROMs are encrypted on the cartridge, and while I really don't know the details, breaking the encryption also seems to open another legal can of worms (remember when people would get tattoos of the DVD encryption key?).
Once again IANAL, but I suspect Nintendo would have a better case against videos that include instructions on acquiring & decrypting Switch ROMs. I'm not sure if that's the case with these videos or not.
Nothing new here. Nintendo hates emulation with a passion. It passionately hates ways people enjoy their devices and platforms in ways they didn't intent. It hates fan projects, it might even hate its fans. Nintendo has a long history of lying in legal documents like DMCAs to take content that doesn't please them down. To be a dedicated fan of Nintendo's franchises is to be a masochist. The Steam deck doesn't just th…
I'm all for emulating systems that don't exist anymore. But this commenter's level of naive entitlement is beyond obnoxious. A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" In this case, Nintendo would cease to exist. Maybe you'd be happy about this. Plenty of people wouldn't. Switches are generally available and not that expensive. If you want to play Switch games, buy one. If you don't, don'…
Nintendo needs to make a better argument for their hardware if they want people to buy it. Not by dictating laws about hardware usage. Simply put, they're living in the past where different hardware and different firmware mattered.
What's next, Microsoft doesn't let me run anything other than Windows on my hardware? Wait ... https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/enable-tpm-2-0-o... https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-...
Hey look, propaganda! Your favorite <3 Hopefully, this is a wake up call for you to read between the lines. In this case: No, Microsoft did not invent secure cloud computing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switch has an e-shop with expensive games that will eventually get offlined within a couple generations like the ones before it vs. Steam, an e-shop with every game, for cheaper, including all the games people bought over the last two decades. I can imagine how disruptive a successful Steam entry into the console space could be once people realize they are tired of "renting" $60 games from ad-hoc console e-shops.
I have to disagree hard on this. Nintendo was on the forefront of making old games playable on the new hardware. On the switch you can play many old SNES and N64 classics included in the Nintendo online subscription at ~2-4€ a month. They re-released childhood favorites like Zelda Ocarina of Times and Super Mario 64 on the 3DS and I actually bought the 3DS (in a special Zelda variant no less) just for that and Majora…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? Yes! > Is it immoral for me to have 3 kids because it means exponential growth, overpopulation, famine and destruction of the Earth? If we follow the logic to its end, the only moral choice is for everyone to have not 1, not 3 but exactly 2 kids. Limiting to 2 would cause the extinction of the human race. Some people should have…
>> is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? > Yes! This is a flawed rule then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" This is an awful rule to live by. There are very few things in the world that _everyone_ would actually do.
While true, that isn't the point of the rule. The meaning is that _if_ everyone did what you do, what _would_ happen. The practi alities of that are irrelevant. It's really about asking yourself if your actions are sustainable or damaging by scaling them up.
Nothing new here. Nintendo hates emulation with a passion. It passionately hates ways people enjoy their devices and platforms in ways they didn't intent. It hates fan projects, it might even hate its fans. Nintendo has a long history of lying in legal documents like DMCAs to take content that doesn't please them down. To be a dedicated fan of Nintendo's franchises is to be a masochist. The Steam deck doesn't just th…
I'm all for emulating systems that don't exist anymore. But this commenter's level of naive entitlement is beyond obnoxious. A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" In this case, Nintendo would cease to exist. Maybe you'd be happy about this. Plenty of people wouldn't. Switches are generally available and not that expensive. If you want to play Switch games, buy one. If you don't, don'…
I don't understand when this rule should/should not be used. Clearly, the rule breaks down in certain situations.
For example: What if everyone decided to go into tech? That's not really good for society since we need things like doctors, but some people do need to go into tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a well established philosophical concept referred as Kant universality laws. It is a good rule to live by. Makes it obvious that cutting in line is immoral because lines could not exist if everybody did it.
Then at the same time, is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? Is it immoral for me to have 3 kids because it means exponential growth, overpopulation, famine and destruction of the Earth? If we follow the logic to its end, the only moral choice is for everyone to have not 1, not 3 but exactly 2 kids. I feel like this "law" really fails to account that not everybody on…
There is no moral implication that you need to create kids.
There is also a number you can orientate yourself if you like to achieve a certain outcome
Nonetheless are you aware that Nintendo had quite bad numbers on and off?
It could have broken Nintendo.