You're viewing part of a thread.
His "company" so excluding random ass users and 3rd party contributors. US copyright law is based on precedence. I'm sure you're aware of the list. Also, check out GPLv3 while you're at it.
If I have weapons cache of guns and âaccidentallyâ leave the door unlocked, would I not be liable if they found that out? Yes, this is the exact same situation, they left their door unlocked and could have done something to prevent this from happening. They didnât, so they are complicit. Itâs not just about copyright, why are you sticking to this like itâs some smoking gun or somethingâŚ.?
Theres plenty of precedence going both ways, you just have to look at the correct way for it to click in your head.
The companies actions or negligence, provided means, as described above, thereâs plenty of precedence where you will be liable. Sorry this doesnât fit with your head bias, but facts donât care.
Sorry this doesnât fit with your head bias, but facts donât care.
.
.
.The only facts youâve provided have gone against your crusade.
So⌠yeah youâre kinda missing the point if you think youâve provided any facts and itâs ironic that I canât see my head bias. What bias? Iâve given you the facts lmfao.
And instead of moving the goalposts, we move to insulting when proven wrong, what a fucking shockerâŚ.
Those are your own words. Unfortunately for you, Nintendo still lost. GPLv3 is a tweaked Copyright licensing agreement aptly nicknamed "Copyleft" with strict rights, Nintendo will never be able to kill the Hydra no matter what. They actually need to win to change the law, but they settled instead meaning section 107 of the DMCA, 1998 US copyright law goes unaltered and the original developers move on, and the community builds on top and alter the project, as per the rights granted by GPLv3. Perhaps a project that'd reach enough funding fast enough to challenge Nintendo may go for it, till then GPLv3 is a sleeping multi-headed dragon Nintendo hasn't been able to stomp out.
Just because a license says something, doesnât mean that it can go against laws and legislations or anything else like that lmfao.
Just like a landlord having a contract from you saying X or Y, if it goes against the law, it doesnât protect them.
All of those subsequent ones will be fine from prosecution, until they start doing what yuzu did like making money, providing means to pirate and access to keys and guides. The protection is only going to last so long until the current loopholes are closed.
Or just donât do illegal shit and you can stay in operation, Cistra and Yuzu were fine for a decade, than they went too far and fucked up.
You can scream all you want, the facts donât care about when your âcompanyâ crosses the line and your probably legal project gets taken with it.
To bad, GPLv3 already has all the precedence and legal backing needed to keep going, Suyu lives, I wonder what the project will be renamed to next? đ
And suyu will continue to live until they do what yuzu did and try to profit and do things illegally.
https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/10574699
There's no need to profit from it anymore, donations exist, Nintendo created a Streisand effect.
Emulators are fine for personal use, if you are accepting donations, itâs no longer for personal use and youâve done your illegal actionâŚ..
Why do you think the ones that donât accept donations arenât being targetedâŚ? Because they are currently in a gray area. Once you start doing illegal actions⌠they get taken out.
That's factually incorrect. They've gone after Dolphin whom explicitly don't accept donations. Then there's, Ryujinx, Cemu, Libretro/RetroArch, emuDeck, etc. that accept donations. This again comes down to the GPLv3 which doesn't restrict the selling of binaries of the legal code nor restrict donations. Infact if one is only accepting donations, your company by U.S. copyright law are a nonprofit.