281–290 of 292 posts
What did you use for making those rather sexy diagrams/figures?
What did you use for making those rather sexy diagrams/figures?
I am also looking for what was used, I really like the design of these!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "circumvention mesure" in there, the emulator can only read unencrypted games by default. You won't find anything in the source code, if the game is encrypted, it cannot read it.
>You won't find anything in the source code Here's the code that breaks the DRM. https://github.com/Fabi/yuzu-mirror-mirror/blob/master/src/c...
Also I may mention that the support of external keys is there for you to get games for your own switch, pirates can just share decrypted games anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You won't find anything in the source code Here's the code that breaks the DRM. https://github.com/Fabi/yuzu-mirror-mirror/blob/master/src/c...
I disagree, this doesn't break anything, even the comments tell you so. This code does nothing by default. Also I may mention that the support of external keys is there for you to get games for your own switch, pirates can just share decrypted games anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, this doesn't break anything, even the comments tell you so. This code does nothing by default. Also I may mention that the support of external keys is there for you to get games for your own switch, pirates can just share decrypted games anyways.
Do you not see the references to decryption and decryption keys? This code is explicitly written to break the DRM of switch carts. If you mean by default you mean they don't provide a key, that doesn't matter in regards to it being considered corcumvention.
Nintendo didn't want to get in court and also had to basically lie in a DMCA, I think that tells it all on their legal standpoint, they were afraid of creating a precedent.
Don't worry that if they were so sure to win, they would be in court already like they did with the R4 cartridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge doesn't directly care, but paying more for lawyers gets you better legal arguments that are more likely to win.
I don’t know. I’ve seen high quality work product from solo practitioners. Also, even the most expensive lawyer cannot make you win when the law isn’t on your side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plagiarism is legal, actually. Copyright infringement is not.
Fair-ish point. I was considering plagiarism in the context of computer programs, which is -at best- dreadfully difficult to do without also violating copyright and/or software licenses. I'd also rephrase your first sentence as "Plagiarism isn't illegal , actually.". Unless you're rich and/or very influential, plagiarism is a seriously bad thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If by "this" you mean "an LLM [reproducing] copyrighted material No. I have absolutely no doubt that happens, and I'm not defending it or encouraging it. My point is whilst it technically might be illegal and happening all the time, if it's unenforceable or sets a precedence that would severely break the business world, there's every chance nobody would dare bring it to a court room. I'm not aware of it happening y…
> ...someone trying to enforce copyright on code that was put in production via an LLM... AIUI, in the US something that's entirely machine-generated is not eligible for copyright protection. If one could demonstrate that that machine-generated output is plagiarized human work and were rich enough to bring it to court, and able to wait five to ten years for the outcome, I have to believe that the usual copyvio rules…
Can you state what actual point you're trying to make, rather than just picking each of my sentences and saying you're not so sure or you disagree? I could do the same to you, but it's just a waste of time if we're not trying to actually come to a conclusion together.
My hypothesis is that I suspect there's a MAD type situation where technically - by the letter of the law - all the big tech companies bragging about x% of their code being LLM generated are basically admitting to breaching copyright laws. But if one well funded tech company successfully prosecutes that and sets a precedence, then all big tech is going to have to wind back all the LLM code its put in production in the past few years to prevent litigation, which is probably unworkable, hence MAD.
I was looking to disprove my own hypothesis by asking for court cases prosecuting this. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you.
(FWIW, I was repeatedly taught by various legal scholars at various levels of education that a criminal is someone who has been found by a court to be guilty of committing an act that violates criminal law. Up until that point, they're usually just a suspect or similar. Not debating, just highlighting that your definition of criminal doesn't negate or disprove any point I'm making. Same for your definition of illegal.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? Or if I, the owner of AT&T, don't want inferior phones on my network? Too bad. The correct course of action to take with companies that try that is to dissolve them. Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. You can always sell the product you want. That doesn't mean you h…
> What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? That makes no sense, either as a hypothetical or a historical reference. > Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. That's a fact you made up that sounds "truthy". It's an opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make up your own facts. And y…
And yeah people hack their appliances all the time. Car modders replace all sorts of things; I don't see why they wouldn't touch software (in fact I already gave an example of an obvious piece of control software to mod: locked down seat heaters). Airplanes have a unique regulatory environment where "consumer" protection is less relevant, but for the same reason it's not like copyright serves a purpose.
I'm familiar with the law; I said we should change it. And no, when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. It is 100% mine. I can smash it with a hammer and no one has any recourse because they don't own it; I do. I can replace chips on the board if I'd like, or move chips onto another board. And I absolutely can install other software on it if I please.