Sooner or later LLMs will trivially shift code from one language to another too, which will be fun
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
71–80 of 99 posts
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#72Earlier 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…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
> (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
The way the game works is not protected. Only Nintendo's code is.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#73The most interesting thing to see here will be what the modding scene does once/if the project is finished. Because generally, decompiled games are a hell of a lot easier to mod in any notable way than ones where you have to code any additions in assembly language, and it gets easier still when someone ports it to PC or what not.
Just look at Super Mario 64. Since that game got decompiled and ported, we've since the number of custom elements in your average ROM hack skyrocket, and the complexity of some of the projects people have made using the engine reach ridiculous degrees. Prior to this, we mostly only saw custom powerups, enemies, bosses and objects in hacks by Kaze Emanuar. Post this happening, such things pop up in contest and game jam hacks made in a few weeks.
Same thing with Ocarina of Time, and other affected games. When people understand the source code (and then when it becomes much easier to modify), the complexity of a community's work goes up tenfold.
So yeah, it could be interesting to see whether any ambitious Twilight Princess mods start development after this, assuming it gets finished. I don't think there's much of a scene for those right now either, so this could be what kickstarts said community in general too.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly. It's just used as a rubric. The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. That's the idea, at least. Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work. Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot deco…
They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code. At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status. This code is then cleaned up such that it compiles and functions and variables are given sensible names. This is, arguably, a creative endeavour, but it's also clearly a deriva…
> They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code.
> At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status.
Courts disagree with you.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727...
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.
> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.
> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.
Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reverse engineering isn't copyright infringement. Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.
> Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however. Probably not if it actually reverse engineered (with a firewall) but that's not what they are doing (i.e. decompilation isn't' reverse engineering)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B
Says that its totally not legal to distribute decompiled code, or indeed:
> uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright.
If it was legal, there would be loads of decompiled binaries floating around for windows, Adobe, autodesk and any number of other expensive bits of software.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mention in the original comment that there are several exceptions (in copyright law), but these are for specific purposes. However this is not one of them. If it was, you could literally apply the same reasoning to any piece of software in the planet.
The specific purpose usually being interopability, yes it does apply to almost any piece of software on the planet. More specifically, it's always allowed for DRM code (because by definition their whole goal is to block interoperability), any kind of proprietary file reading and any kind of porting. Here in the case of these games, the interoperability argument is very easy to make since they can only run on legacy h…
Ok, do you realize that from you what you claim you can conclude that (software) copyright is useless? Go to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38410176
_Anyone_ could get any piece of software, claim that they want to run it on their new-fangled "x85" instruction set, and, according to your rationale, you'd be able to just decompile it to a different programming language and distribute your translation as much as you want!
> More specifically, it's always allowed for DRM code (because by definition their whole goal is to block interoperability), any kind of proprietary file reading and any kind of porting.
For the record, you are completely misunderstanding the point. These exception allows you to perform RE to _understand_ the code in question for interoperability, not to strip it from copyright and start distributing it as if it was your own code. And in most jurisdictions such exception only becomes possible when it's the _only option available_ to interoperate. As this is _hardly_ the only option available to run this game on your platform (emulation, for example, is completely legal, AND you could RE this title to fix your emulator), this exception hardly applies here.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> If you do something obviously different, like freely distribute a modified Windows ISO as your own, I would expect to encounter some resistance.
And this is exactly what this Github repository is doing.
If you are arguing "abandonware", then this is no legal argument whatsoever.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 > (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The way the game works is not protected. Only Nintendo's code is.
You are doing the same mistake as the other poster: claiming the consequent. I could also say that my magical transformation process produces code which is not Microsoft's, even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's. Why would your method be stripping copyright protection while mine wouldn't? What's the difference from what you are claiming?
Frankly at this point I just want to point out that if in your world view this is allowed, then _all_ software copyright is pointless, since anyone could apply the same rationale to any program in the world. What's the point of the GPL on such world?
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 > (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The way the game works is not protected. Only Nintendo's code is.
You are doing the same mistake as the other poster: claiming the consequent. I could also say that my magical transformation process produces code which is not Microsoft's, even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's. Why would your method be stripping copyright protection while mine wouldn't? What's the difference from what you are claiming? Frankly at this point I just want to point out that if in your…
> even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's
Fair use.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727...
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.
> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.
> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.
Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.
> then _all_ software copyright is pointless
It is pointless. I am a copyright abolitionist.
> What's the point of the GPL on such world?
None. The GPL was literally created in response to copyright protection being extended to software. No copyright, no point to the GPL.
Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Decompilation
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are doing the same mistake as the other poster: claiming the consequent. I could also say that my magical transformation process produces code which is not Microsoft's, even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's. Why would your method be stripping copyright protection while mine wouldn't? What's the difference from what you are claiming? Frankly at this point I just want to point out that if in your…
> even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's Fair use. Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727... > The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). > Object code cannot, however, be r…
> [software copyright] is pointless.
So you provide one answer on my question of which thought process leads to these conclusions: wishful thinking.
Sigh.
See what I just wrote on the other comment:
> These exceptions allows you to perform RE to _understand_ the code in question for interoperability, not to strip it from copyright and start distributing it as if it was your own code. And in most jurisdictions such exception only becomes possible when it's the _only option available_ to interoperate. As this is _hardly_ the only option available to run this game on your platform (emulation, for example, is completely legal, AND you could RE this title to fix your emulator), this exception hardly applies here.
This is exactly what actually happened in the case you are quoting.