this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16948 readers
582 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder why they settled, I thought emulators were protected as long as they don't contain any copyrighted stuff. Was it because they circumvented DRM?
I'd imagine because they charged for access to piracy-specific functions of the tool and knew they couldn't argue a case.
It was a dumb move for them to add functionality for unreleased games in the first place, and an even worse move to charge money for it. It makes it a lot harder to convince a court that your tool is for backup/archival purposes only, when you have features that could only work with pirated materials.
Because they were engaged in code theft, piracy and Nintendo had them dead to rights. Leaked chats and drive folders showed they were actively pirating games, paywalling questionable content and using the Switch SDK. Clean room emulation implementations are completely legal. Their methods and behavior were not.
Ok I didn't know that.
Because Nintendo would have dragged them to the court repeatedly and bled them dry that way.
The case Nintendo was making, as I understand it, was that their site provided pretty clear links to sources where you could circumvent encryption, even though they weren't doing it themselves.
This is effectively how Kakao argued against Tachiyomi: they provided extensions to websites where pirated manga could be hosted, even if they weren't running the sites themselves. They facilitated piracy, even if they didn't host any pirated content.
I have a profound respect for how RPCS3 has been able to stay above water. They police the community heavily, AND they have a list of games that are persona non grata to even talk about, let alone ask how to get them to work.
where's the list?