101–110 of 186 posts
Nintendo is in an interesting position whereby they are actually selling emulators as a product to this day. Which gives them more of a leg to stand on in these sorts of efforts, regardless of whether or not I personally agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, it says it right there: No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 Can the emulators remove the circumvention code to avoid the DMCA takedown?
Not even for research purposes?
Out of sheer spite, I have long decided to never give any money to Nintendo. I pirate. And if I can't pirate, I won't play.
Yes, what an absurd notion they have that they must get paid for their (excellent) work.
The same is true of the west Nashville music-finance complex. And of Hollywood. And of every industry rent-seeking around the restrictions on speech and press which are branded as "intellectual property".
This just happens to be a transparently egregious example, as they are literally trying to censor a FOSS project and make its contributors' speech invisible / illegal.
I only expect this to amplify the Streisand effect. Funny to see how disconnected corporations (and their legals) are from the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we can simply have a git hoster which is not in the US and as such is not impacted by DCMA
The overarching terms of the DMCA are specified by the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which every developed country has implemented.
Why are emulators illegal? I understand that they are associated with piracy because people play pirates games on them. But it’s like banning BitTorrent because it allows you to pirate, or Windows because you can play pirates games on it as well. The article mentions that emulators “illegally circumvent Nintendo’s technological protection measures and run illegal copies of Switch games.”. But which law makes it illeg…
Emulators per se are not illegal. Most likely.
I wonder if there’s a “git over BitTorrent”. Having a cryptographically signed (by authors, not by GitHub) and fully open source git hosting network would be a boom for FOSS security in general.
Git is a decentralized service.
Often discussed here.
However, many Hacker News commenters love to bash it because it is associated with cryptocurrencies.
I wonder if there’s a “git over BitTorrent”. Having a cryptographically signed (by authors, not by GitHub) and fully open source git hosting network would be a boom for FOSS security in general.
As much as it pains me to say this this might be a good use of blockchain