Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#51

Post by chungy »

LegibleCrimson wrote: post #46
chungy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even possible that Nintendo evaluates the harm of these projects to be rather lower compared to distributing the complete games themselves. Even though it's not based in any legal reality, the projects' firewall of "You must provide art assets from your own copy of the game" may suffice to keep the lawyers away. I know, Nintendo will litigate anyone for any reason, but it is possible for a company to look away w…

Yeah, seems most likely. In the past, they've explicitly taken down distributions of things like the SM64 PC port, but left the decompilation. Companies don't have to C&D. If something poses very little financial danger, but taking it down presents significant risk of PR harm, it's not worth it. The C&D would cost more than it would save, so it makes no business sense. Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down…

> Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular.

If talking about AM2R, it posed a rather credible threat against the success of the official Metroid 2 remake (ignoring the fact that AM2R is of much higher quality anyway). Plus it contained ripped sprites from Zero Mission, Fusion, and incorporated all of the characters and enemies that Nintendo owns.

You can't just make your own Lord of the Rings or Star Wars without infringing the copyright of the original work. Same with fan remakes.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#52

Post by EMIRELADERO »

vore wrote: post #32
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decompilation is an essential (although not mandatory for some cases) part of reverse-engineering. As for decompilation projects that have only reconstructed source code and no game media assets, it's probably fair use.

It is not fair use in itself: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyr... Decompiling object code produces an approximation of the original source code. Merely making this rough copy would usually violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights, even if the person who decompiled the code only used it as a preliminary step in making another work. The only reason anyone believes this is fair use is…

It is more likely to be fair use in this specific instance, as the copyrighted work to which the analysis is applied to is the whole game, not the code itself.

A big part of fair use analysis is in the effect on the market for the original work. If people have to obtain a copy to even use the project in any interactable way, the effect is either none (if we suppose every user of the project gets their original copy illegaly) or positive/benefitial to the copyright holder (if it makes those users actually buy legit copies)

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#53

Post by qwery »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #25
pjerem wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.

> This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable. That doesn't make it not copyright infringement. As long as it's based on the same executable, that's a derivative work. In the same way if I were to recreate Star Wars A New Hope with new actors and new sets. If I were to play a cover of Micheal Jackson's Thriller with new instru…

You could do a clean-room implementation[0] of Michael Jackson's Thriller and the rights holders could still take you to court and have a good shot at winning. You could have never heard Thriller, come up with an obvious[1] melodic phrasing that some lawyers reckon sounds close enough and still get sued.

Of course, none of that makes it copyright infringement, only the (would-be) judge does.

[0] The product of which is roughly equivalent to a cover

[1] obvious to a musician or composer

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#54

Post by qwery »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #37
pjerem wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.

Why is it always the same on every thread of this type? Perhaps I can grab the code segments of a Windows ISO, apply a series of mechanical transformations, and proceed to call it Freedows and freely distribute it as my own? I am having trouble understanding the thought processes that lead to these conclusions. Too much ChatGPT? By this logic copyright protection on software would be meaningless. The GPL would be mea…

I'm not sure why. I think most threads of any type usually feel the same as other threads of the type. As for your Windows hypothetical, not sure which Windows you're talking about, but I don't think Microsoft would really care if you did the equivalent of the projects being discussed to Windowses of approximately that age. If you do something obviously different, like freely distribute a modified Windows ISO as your own, I would expect to encounter some resistance.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#55

Post by qwery »

vore wrote: post #10
minimaxir wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Nintendo games (including Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) have been decompiled and have not been attacked by the Nintendo Ninjas: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot The more pressing legal concern here is the use of game assets, which these decompilations work around by requiring the user to provide a ROM to extract them first.

I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.

I obviously don't speak for who you replied to, but I just wanted to point out that they made no claim about copyright.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#56

Post by vore »

qwery wrote: post #55
vore wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.

I obviously don't speak for who you replied to, but I just wanted to point out that they made no claim about copyright.

Legal concern = copyright infringement. What other legal concerns are there in this scenario?

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#57

Post by ThatPlayer »

colechristensen wrote: post #34
vore wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.

There are fair use carveouts for reverse engineering code to, for example, make it usable on different platforms. I don’t believe this kind of decompile project has ever had its day in court and the laws are written in such a way that the outcome is at least somewhat likely to be skewed in favor of reverse engineering. Nintendo may be avoiding bringing suit because they don’t think they could win or that the judgemen…

Those fair use exceptions only cover the process of reverse engineering specifically. From that article: "Reverse engineers execute code and/or make copies of software as part of analyzing the way the program works."

But distributing the code is not part of the reverse engineering process, so that fair use doesn't apply. Also from that article:

> It is highly risky to copy any code into a program you create as a result of reverse engineering, because that copy could infringe copyright unless it is a fair use under copyright law.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#58

Post by LegibleCrimson »

chungy wrote: post #51
LegibleCrimson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, seems most likely. In the past, they've explicitly taken down distributions of things like the SM64 PC port, but left the decompilation. Companies don't have to C&D. If something poses very little financial danger, but taking it down presents significant risk of PR harm, it's not worth it. The C&D would cost more than it would save, so it makes no business sense. Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down…

> Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular. If talking about AM2R, it posed a rather credible threat against the success of the official Metroid 2 remake (ignoring the fact that AM2R is of much higher quality anyway). Plus it contained ripped sprites from Zero Mission, Fusion, and incorporated all of the characters and enemies that Ninte…

That one I get to a degree, but they've hit a lot of others for less clear benefit.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#59

Post by realusername »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #35
jandrese wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverse engineering isn't copyright infringement. Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.

Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating, therefore you are copying (whether for your personal enjoyment or not) the works of the author without permission. There are a series of well documented exceptions... normally found in co…

> Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating

This reasoning is only valid in the US, this kind of anti reverse engineering clause has no value in the EU, reverse engineering is a predefined exception granted to copyright which cannot be voided.

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation

#60

Post by [deleted] »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #25
pjerem wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.

> This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable. That doesn't make it not copyright infringement. As long as it's based on the same executable, that's a derivative work. In the same way if I were to recreate Star Wars A New Hope with new actors and new sets. If I were to play a cover of Micheal Jackson's Thriller with new instru…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN