this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
173 points (96.8% liked)
Games
32545 readers
1540 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hard disagree. Corporations get to make their own rules, and this person is a scapegoat. They've been attacking emulators for a long time.
While it's true that they've been trying to stop emulators for a long time, they haven't been able to do too much about them because of Sony v Bleem.
Modern emulators exist in a legal gray area, though, and might be violating the DMCA. The more of these assholes that pop up and get sued, the higher the likelihood that one of them refuses to settle, gets steamrolled by Nintendo, and gives them and every other console manufacturer the legal precedent that emulators are piracy/DRM-circumvention tools.
Even if you disagree with my belief that Nintendo would be less aggressive this year if people hadn't been spotlighting emulation-based piracy and provoking them, you should be concerned about that.
Sony v Connectix is the actual case that set the precedent for emulation, not Bleem. The Bleem case decided whether or not the use of screenshots of copyrighted games to advertise their emulator was legal. I believe it just deferred to the Connectix case for the legality of the emulator.
Thanks for the correction. I sometimes get those two mixed up in my memory, and it's a really stupid problem that I need to fix.