Skip Navigation

You're treading a fine line Mr. Tim Apple

139

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
139 comments
  • They are one and the same. If you knew where to look, they provided means.

    Tools are agnostic to their use. Tools do not have a preference how they are used. Hammers that are used are agnostic to if they are hammering a nail into a wall or caving in a skull. Yuzu would work exactly the same if you dumped your own carts. Same for emulators for Genesis and Atari 2600 and PlayStation.

    Whatā€™s wrong with Twitter? You could also just google this and find the information yourself, donā€™t know why I have to provide what should be common knowledge on this subject.

    If you make a claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how these things work. You say a claim, you give us the proof. And I can say on Twitter "Yuzu was 100000% legal and Nintendo actually is the real illegal operation". Now that's a valid source too, right?

    They were not a legal emulator, full stop, sorry.

    https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq

    Sorry but that biggest technology legal experts and defenders of the little guys who get sued by the big companies you polish the boots with your tongue strongly prove you wrong.

    • Uhhh they didnā€™t reverse engineer the key they used, thatā€™s the entire stickler hereā€¦..

      And the Twitter thread had the sources, so why are you saying the onus is on me? I provided it, even though it should be common knowledge.

      • they didnā€™t reverse engineer the key they used

        Stop peddling that stupid lie already. They didn't use any key period; we literally have backups of the entire GPL source code will all of the commit history dating all the way back to August 30, 2013, stop spewing bullshit out your mouth.
        You had to rip your own key from your own legally purchased switch hardware using legally protected homebrew tools and manually add it to Yuzu configs.This process is protected under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

        Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console's technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.

        Section 107 of the Copyright Act establishes the fair use exception, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes such as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research".

        Clean Room design reverse engineering for the purpose of creating an Emulator falls under "research" as listed by section 107 and independent creation as protected by existing judicial precedents.

        Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.

        Meaning Clean Room design reverse engineering as independent creation & modifying your legally purchased hardware with homebrew tools as fair use being protected by existing judicial precedents is also in turn protected by Section 107.

        And the Twitter thread had the sources

        Twitter doesn't allow us to reverse the thread, kindly link the exact source you're referring to.

You've viewed 139 comments.