Dolphin on Steam Indefinitely Postponed(dolphin-emu.org)
dolphin-emu.org
Dolphin on Steam Indefinitely Postponed
https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2023/05/27/dolphin-steam-indefinitely-postponed/
273 comments
This allegedly isn't a DMCA safe harbor takedown, but rather a C&D based on Chapter 12 (which bans breaking DRM outside of certain exceptions, and I don't think any of the exceptions for video games cover personal entertainment use). As far as I know, Chapter 12 violations are considered a separate consideration from copyright infringement and are thus not covered by the safe harbor process (outside of which a counter-notification is irrelevant).
From a more informed source (outgoing treasurer of the foundation backing Dolphin, and HN user delroth): https://mastodon.delroth.net/@delroth/110440308907131051
So yes, this is about the anti-circumvention provisions and not related to the takedown procedure that usually comes to mind when the DMCA is mentioned.
So yes, this is about the anti-circumvention provisions and not related to the takedown procedure that usually comes to mind when the DMCA is mentioned.
Thanks for more info! And excuse my language, but holy fuck Valve is not what it portrays itself to be. Going around and proactively seeking legal approval of third parties, that is NOT what I expected them to do, let alone in a case where an emulator is the core of the issue. They basically preemptively covered their ass just so the 0.1% chance of Nintendo suing them is 0. Nice. Imagine selling a product on Steam and Valve going behind your back and discussing with your competition if it's ok to have your product on Steam (lawyers to lawyers, no courts involved!)... I know it's not the same, but this case doesn't exacly inspire confidence in them being hands off in the future!
Given how many YouTubers brazenly use dolphin on steam decks and say you can get free games, I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner.
In general, I'm not sure what the idea of putting Dolphin on Steam was supposed to gain. First, I have a hard time conceiving why I'd even want to manage it from Steam, but aside from that, it seems like it'll only attract attention from people wanting "free games".
It's sad too, since the Wii is a console that makes it extraordinarily simple to dump your own game discs and use the emulator in a completely legal fashion.
It's sad too, since the Wii is a console that makes it extraordinarily simple to dump your own game discs and use the emulator in a completely legal fashion.
> In general, I'm not sure what the idea of putting Dolphin on Steam was supposed to gain. First, I have a hard time conceiving why I'd even want to manage it from Steam,
In case you haven't heard of it, Valve sells the Steam Deck: a handheld gaming console with Steam as its primary UI. Under the hood, it's a low-power AMD x86 system running Linux (specifically, Valve's SteamOS distro). So having Dolphin on Steam would be the optimal way to make Dolphin available to Steam Deck users, just like having Dolphin available on the Google Play Store is the optimal way to make Dolphin available to Android users even though side-loading is an option.
In case you haven't heard of it, Valve sells the Steam Deck: a handheld gaming console with Steam as its primary UI. Under the hood, it's a low-power AMD x86 system running Linux (specifically, Valve's SteamOS distro). So having Dolphin on Steam would be the optimal way to make Dolphin available to Steam Deck users, just like having Dolphin available on the Google Play Store is the optimal way to make Dolphin available to Android users even though side-loading is an option.
I would bet good money that this is exactly why a DMCA was sent; someone at Nintendo was shown a Steam Deck, which is a big Switch competitor, loading Dolphin and playing Gamecube games for free with better performance than what Nintendo themselves deign to provide us.
Dolphin doesn’t need to be on steam to be used on a steam deck. You can install any program you want, it’s not restricted to steam.
To most people, if it's not on Steam, it doesn't exist, especially on a Steam Deck. So while anyone can still install it outside of Steam, by not being available via Steam their possible audience is significantly reduced.
Is this so true of emulators? Emulators already often require lots of work to go find the games themselves (which certainly would not be distributed on Steam), so how much effort is actually spared for the users? Very little.
> Emulators already often require lots of work to go find the games themselves
That used to be true, but today, ROM sites are very easily discoverable on Google. People also sell ROMs on hard drives and SD cards on Amazon, many of them qualifying for Prime delivery.
That used to be true, but today, ROM sites are very easily discoverable on Google. People also sell ROMs on hard drives and SD cards on Amazon, many of them qualifying for Prime delivery.
> That used to be true, but today, ROM sites are very easily discoverable on Google.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't been true at any point in the past 25 years. ROM sites have always been easy to find, even pre-Google.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't been true at any point in the past 25 years. ROM sites have always been easy to find, even pre-Google.
I used to find them on IRC fserves. I first started doing that maybe 26 years ago. Using an IRC client and a command line, so not stuff most people off the street would be familiar with. Later on I remember them being traded on apps like Hotline. I don't recall it being super easy in the few years after that. It wasn't a mainstream thing, you had to know a little bit about the communities involved.
Dolphin is by far the most well known emulator in its category. Honestly emulators don’t really have their place on a game marketplace, that would really just be an incentive for people who want to easily pirate games for free.
Anyone interested in emulating a Wii or GameCube for legitimate reasons will easily find Dolphin and can install it on their Steam Deck.
Anyone interested in emulating a Wii or GameCube for legitimate reasons will easily find Dolphin and can install it on their Steam Deck.
> Anyone interested...will easily find Dolphin and can install it on their Steam Deck.
Anyone?
Really, anyone?
rubs forehead
It's easier to have it on Steam. When I was 15, 25 even, maybe I'm so excited and hellbent on getting an emulator that I actively figure out the 10 step process to sideload. As a casual, it's much nicer when it's one step.
Anyone?
Really, anyone?
rubs forehead
It's easier to have it on Steam. When I was 15, 25 even, maybe I'm so excited and hellbent on getting an emulator that I actively figure out the 10 step process to sideload. As a casual, it's much nicer when it's one step.
> maybe I'm so excited and hellbent on getting an emulator that I actively figure out the 10 step process to sideload.
Steam Deck isn't locked down. From Steam itself, you just "exit to desktop", and bam you're met with a KDE desktop. Running Linux. You can do whatever you want. Including installing emulators and games that aren't distributed on Steam. It only takes one step: "flatpak install dolphin-emu"
Steam Deck isn't locked down. From Steam itself, you just "exit to desktop", and bam you're met with a KDE desktop. Running Linux. You can do whatever you want. Including installing emulators and games that aren't distributed on Steam. It only takes one step: "flatpak install dolphin-emu"
> Honestly emulators don’t really have their place on a game marketplace, that would really just be an incentive for people who want to easily pirate games for free.
So what? If Nintendo fails to provide a way to buy the games on that device its on them. We really don't need to make excuses for corporations generating unneccesary E-waste due to their greed.
So what? If Nintendo fails to provide a way to buy the games on that device its on them. We really don't need to make excuses for corporations generating unneccesary E-waste due to their greed.
Yes but if you make an emulator available to most people, most people are going to use it for piracy, and you are obviously going to attract a lot of attention from the law. I'm not saying that emulation should be illegal, but really this is a case where I am literally not surprised at all that Nintendo would act
But is it really piracy if there is no way to buy and play the original game except for completely overpriced second-hand stuff?
I now it is legally, but morally I don't think people are doing something wrong here.
I now it is legally, but morally I don't think people are doing something wrong here.
That view is just a result of massive cultural/language barrier between ja-JP and en-US(-gaming) community. Not a global thing.
Is it? Yes.
Should it be? No.
Should it be? No.
That really is irrelevant. Companies don't want it to be there, and will use their immense powers to try and stop it being there. It isn't worth the risk of trying to put it on Steam
It's not like having dolphin on steam will give you access to free gamecube and wii games. You will still have to get them yourself and/or any bioses that may be required, I dunno.
Which means a bit of hacking, which means you should already be capable enough to install emudeck on your steam deck. Which is vastly superior to any single emulator on steam itself.
Which means a bit of hacking, which means you should already be capable enough to install emudeck on your steam deck. Which is vastly superior to any single emulator on steam itself.
> It's not like having dolphin on steam will give you access to free gamecube and wii games. You will still have to get them yourself and/or any bioses that may be required,...
Yet.
Yet.
From Dolphin's FAQ [1]
>Where can I download game ISOs/ROMs ?¶
>Short answer: You don't. Buy games and dump them with a Wii.
>Long answer: Downloading commercial games is illegal and thus strongly frowned upon by the Dolphin developers.
[1] https://dolphin-emu.org/docs/faq/#couldnt-dolphin-use-more-m...
>Where can I download game ISOs/ROMs ?¶
>Short answer: You don't. Buy games and dump them with a Wii.
>Long answer: Downloading commercial games is illegal and thus strongly frowned upon by the Dolphin developers.
[1] https://dolphin-emu.org/docs/faq/#couldnt-dolphin-use-more-m...
"Strongly frowned upon" lol. Wink wink
Ps this is not a moral judgement, I would use it myself except I don't like Nintendo's style of games. I owned a Wii and bought some games but I was really bored. I modded it and downloaded everything I could get and not a single game could capture my attention. I missed good fpses, it was all party games and kiddyish/cartoonish stuff like Zelda and Mario. So I've never looked at Nintendo since. Perhaps these days their offers would be more interesting to me but I haven't checked.
This was in the early days of the Wii though, when it was still a big hype. So all the games I tried were launch titles or very soon after. I thought the motion controller thing was not very well worked out and more of a gimmick. I was expecting it to be more exact like with VR controllers these days.
Ps this is not a moral judgement, I would use it myself except I don't like Nintendo's style of games. I owned a Wii and bought some games but I was really bored. I modded it and downloaded everything I could get and not a single game could capture my attention. I missed good fpses, it was all party games and kiddyish/cartoonish stuff like Zelda and Mario. So I've never looked at Nintendo since. Perhaps these days their offers would be more interesting to me but I haven't checked.
This was in the early days of the Wii though, when it was still a big hype. So all the games I tried were launch titles or very soon after. I thought the motion controller thing was not very well worked out and more of a gimmick. I was expecting it to be more exact like with VR controllers these days.
Srsly. I don’t get what the point of this was.
Which just paints an even bigger target on it.
When it was on its own website and hosted on its own servers, with mostly word of mouth (online) spreading it, Nintendo were probably not too happy, but accepting that it was legal.
But when Valve, who are sort of competing with Nintendo, host it and promote, that's another matter. Especially when many people do play games using it that they have not legally obtained.
When it was on its own website and hosted on its own servers, with mostly word of mouth (online) spreading it, Nintendo were probably not too happy, but accepting that it was legal.
But when Valve, who are sort of competing with Nintendo, host it and promote, that's another matter. Especially when many people do play games using it that they have not legally obtained.
Is there a reason you can't just use the normal OS package repo like everyone else?
No, but the average (read: casual) user isn’t comfortable using the command line to install packages from the command line (and I don’t think SteamOS comes with a package manager UI), so there’s a huge potential install base for users if they could install it via the UI.
It comes with Discover, the KDE Plasma GUI package manager. You can install Flatpaks using it on SteamOS.
Steam has been much more than just a store-front for a while now. There's a few features that would take the Dolphin team a lot of effort to implement independently but can be integrated without much effort through Steam. A few examples would be:
- Steam Remote Play: Seamlessly playing your Wii games from your TV.
- Steam Workshop: Authoring, distribution, and management of modifications to the emulator.
- Steam Input: A powerful abstraction layer dealing with different controllers and the mapping of their inputs. Sharing and downloading input maps from the community is directly integrated.
- Steam cloud save: Share configuration and save data between computers.
- Steam's multiplayer API could potentially have made it much easier to use Dolphin for multiplayer games.
Most of these things can be achieved without Steam but they're less convenient, more difficult for non-technical users, and yet another thing to manage, update, and keep track of.
- Steam Remote Play: Seamlessly playing your Wii games from your TV.
- Steam Workshop: Authoring, distribution, and management of modifications to the emulator.
- Steam Input: A powerful abstraction layer dealing with different controllers and the mapping of their inputs. Sharing and downloading input maps from the community is directly integrated.
- Steam cloud save: Share configuration and save data between computers.
- Steam's multiplayer API could potentially have made it much easier to use Dolphin for multiplayer games.
Most of these things can be achieved without Steam but they're less convenient, more difficult for non-technical users, and yet another thing to manage, update, and keep track of.
Putting it on Steam means all your games have (seamless, Steam) cloud saves for all your games.
Only if they implement steam cloud saves. Its not automatic.
Dolphin's Twitter account stated that cloud saves was part of the Steam release.
It really is one of the main reasons to do a Steam release. Seamlessly playing your savegames and save states on desktop PC over to Steam Deck and back again made RetroArch one of the killer Deck apps IMO.
It really is one of the main reasons to do a Steam release. Seamlessly playing your savegames and save states on desktop PC over to Steam Deck and back again made RetroArch one of the killer Deck apps IMO.
It's pretty close though, there's a mode where you can just point Steam Cloud at a folder and it will sync it.
Yeah, they have no shame. Feels like they would throw anyone under the bus for a few clicks and subs.
This is something that often gets missed in the “Why can’t Nintendo be more like Sega?” argument.
Nintendo sells games from other publishers, Sega doesn’t. Other publishers get mad if Nintendo can’t keep piracy on their platform under control. They send angry letters, complain to their representatives, and so forth. It’s not just (arguably) lost sales, but now you have to deal with more cheating players. To Nintendo, piracy is an embarrassment. Nintendo files DMCAs, in part, because other publishers expect them to and because only Nintendo can.
Nintendo sells games from other publishers, Sega doesn’t. Other publishers get mad if Nintendo can’t keep piracy on their platform under control. They send angry letters, complain to their representatives, and so forth. It’s not just (arguably) lost sales, but now you have to deal with more cheating players. To Nintendo, piracy is an embarrassment. Nintendo files DMCAs, in part, because other publishers expect them to and because only Nintendo can.
>Other publishers get mad if Nintendo can’t keep piracy on their platform under control
Maybe, but if that mattered we would have seen the consequences already because Nintendo since the gamecube has been uniquely abysmal at anti-piracy, the worst by far of any console maker. Most recently their blockbuster game Tears of the Kingdom was playable for free for anyone with a decent video card, more than 10 days before the game was officially released.
That’s not an aberration, they are just extremely bad at securing their hardware platforms. they still seem to be doing OK.
Maybe, but if that mattered we would have seen the consequences already because Nintendo since the gamecube has been uniquely abysmal at anti-piracy, the worst by far of any console maker. Most recently their blockbuster game Tears of the Kingdom was playable for free for anyone with a decent video card, more than 10 days before the game was officially released.
That’s not an aberration, they are just extremely bad at securing their hardware platforms. they still seem to be doing OK.
My impression is that Nintendo doesn't really care about piracy. It doesn't seem to affect them meaningfully, and their actions to stop piracy are always in the "too little too late" fashion. I have a Switch, and I don't pirate its games because I like the company. It wouldn't be hard to do it if I really wanted to.
What they really seem to care about is their brands and IPs, and seem to go after about people using those - for example, the draconian rules on streaming, shutting down Smash Bros competitions, etc.
I can understand their actions. More than any other game company, Nintendo lives and dies on their brand and IPs. Sony and Microsoft are larger than their gaming divisions. Nintendo only has gaming to save itself, and their IPs are major console sellers.
What they really seem to care about is their brands and IPs, and seem to go after about people using those - for example, the draconian rules on streaming, shutting down Smash Bros competitions, etc.
I can understand their actions. More than any other game company, Nintendo lives and dies on their brand and IPs. Sony and Microsoft are larger than their gaming divisions. Nintendo only has gaming to save itself, and their IPs are major console sellers.
> they are just extremely bad at securing their hardware platforms
Frankly, though I hate to defend them; this is wrong and an insult to Nintendo.
The Nintendo Switch was so, so close to being a masterpiece of security. Nintendo even built their own OS from scratch for it based on a microkernel. It is so secure that an open-source developer who reimplemented it (SciresM) has said we very likely may never have a kernel exploit on future Nintendo systems, ever. The entire kernel is so compact there’s almost nothing to attack. Everything else from graphics to USB runs in sandboxed usermode and can’t run homebrew. This thing is intrinsically more secure than the Xbox One and PlayStation 5 in design.
Nintendo’s software was, according to him and other developers looking at it, downright almost flawless in security. The problem was NVIDIA, who had a bug in their recovery mode allowing unsigned code; and NVIDIA again for releasing a chip with inadequate protections against glitching. Nintendo did everything they could almost perfectly, but their chip supplier didn’t.
Both of those are one-time plays though. The next chip will almost certainly contain glitch protection; and the recovery mode bug has already been patched on newer Switches. Combined with Nintendo’s (literally) impeccable OS design, and the Switch 2 may not be broken for a very, very long time.
Frankly, though I hate to defend them; this is wrong and an insult to Nintendo.
The Nintendo Switch was so, so close to being a masterpiece of security. Nintendo even built their own OS from scratch for it based on a microkernel. It is so secure that an open-source developer who reimplemented it (SciresM) has said we very likely may never have a kernel exploit on future Nintendo systems, ever. The entire kernel is so compact there’s almost nothing to attack. Everything else from graphics to USB runs in sandboxed usermode and can’t run homebrew. This thing is intrinsically more secure than the Xbox One and PlayStation 5 in design.
Nintendo’s software was, according to him and other developers looking at it, downright almost flawless in security. The problem was NVIDIA, who had a bug in their recovery mode allowing unsigned code; and NVIDIA again for releasing a chip with inadequate protections against glitching. Nintendo did everything they could almost perfectly, but their chip supplier didn’t.
Both of those are one-time plays though. The next chip will almost certainly contain glitch protection; and the recovery mode bug has already been patched on newer Switches. Combined with Nintendo’s (literally) impeccable OS design, and the Switch 2 may not be broken for a very, very long time.
Switch was broken through a Nvidia tegra hardware bug.
And Nintendo Fokus on gameplay and not doing the hardware race makes emulation much easier for current games (switch is also really old by now)
And Nintendo Fokus on gameplay and not doing the hardware race makes emulation much easier for current games (switch is also really old by now)
>Nintendo since the gamecube has been uniquely abysmal at anti-piracy, the worst by far of any console maker.
I'm still amazed at the 3DS piracy that was done through downloading from the official eShop.
I'm still amazed at the 3DS piracy that was done through downloading from the official eShop.
What I'm hearing is that when Nintendo has to decide between its users or its publishers it is choosing the publishers.
I didn't realize developers were still publishing Gamecube and Wii games. Can you share some of the newest games that have been released?
What are you talking about? Every game developer licenses with Nintendo to publish to Switch. Nintendo takes about 30% royalties, which stings if their platform is insecure. Only Nintendo can make physical cartridges. Nothing with the status quo there has changed.
Also, the last original Wii game was Just Dance 2020. Not joking, a Wii game was released 3 years ago.
Also, the last original Wii game was Just Dance 2020. Not joking, a Wii game was released 3 years ago.
I was specifically asking about Gamecube and Wii games, not Switch. Dolphin is a Gamecube/Wii emulator, both of which no longer have active games being released for them. Your argument might have some application if it was a Switch emulator being propped up.
Metroid Prime: Remastered just got released on Switch and sold a million units.
Anybody who thought that was a good game is now looking for the second and third installments in the trilogy which Nintendo offically said they weren't going to develop (oops). So those are effectively only available on Dolphin/Wii.
Yeah, Nintendo got caught with their pants down (Metroid Prime sold way better than they expected) and are losing future sales for every person who pulls up Dolphin and the next two Metroids.
Anybody who thought that was a good game is now looking for the second and third installments in the trilogy which Nintendo offically said they weren't going to develop (oops). So those are effectively only available on Dolphin/Wii.
Yeah, Nintendo got caught with their pants down (Metroid Prime sold way better than they expected) and are losing future sales for every person who pulls up Dolphin and the next two Metroids.
Why are you ignoring the issue of games being re-released on newer platforms? Even if the Gamecube and Wii are more or less dead platforms, that doesn't mean the games are no longer valuable IP that the studios want protected in any way possible.
Imo if a publisher wants to retain rights to a game, they should have to make it available for sale. If you don't provide some legal way to acquire a game for some number of years (5? 10?) it should go into the public domain (the game itself, not the related IP).
most games are available on amazon. popular games like rayman raving rabids for wii, motorstorm for ps3, and underground 2 for ps2 are still available new. more niche games like frequency for ps2 and older gen games like crash warped for ps1 are still available refurbished. pretty much any console game from the last 25 years that didn't totally flop is available in good condition from a major retailer. the rest are around at boutiques and on the used market.
we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, and i can't think of an argument for any game being more of a public good than works of other types like lolita, the search for animal chin, or paul's boutique.
we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else, and i can't think of an argument for any game being more of a public good than works of other types like lolita, the search for animal chin, or paul's boutique.
70 years AFTER THE THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. Still sound reasonable?
> is available in good condition from a major retailer
I don't think Nintendo gets a cut of used game sales; †he first-sale doctrine should still apply.
I don't think Nintendo gets a cut of used game sales; †he first-sale doctrine should still apply.
> we get public domain in 70 years just like everything else,
Nitpick: video games are almost always a work-for-hire, so it's 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation, in the unusual event that publication gets delayed long enough for this deadline to expire first).
Nitpick: video games are almost always a work-for-hire, so it's 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation, in the unusual event that publication gets delayed long enough for this deadline to expire first).
Incredible that this is normalised. When a law is "you can enjoy cultural creations of 2007 in 2102", disobeying it is legitimate.
Your logic is flawed.
You may already enjoy that creation by paying for it, just like you would for many other cultural items.
Or was it just sarcasm?
You may already enjoy that creation by paying for it, just like you would for many other cultural items.
Or was it just sarcasm?
If there is no legal way to obtain the game, or no practical way to obtain the system to play it on, then you can't enjoy it.
This is one of the most important purposes of emulation: it allows for digital archival of otherwise-obsolete hardware and software.
This is one of the most important purposes of emulation: it allows for digital archival of otherwise-obsolete hardware and software.
[deleted]
By the time these games enter the public domain, there'll be no way to play them except via an emulator and no way to develop an emulator if there's not one already - the flash holding the OS on all the Wiis out there will have long bitrotted away. Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years. Strict copyright and DRM enforcement would most likely lead to this era of games being lost forever, just like many older films from a century or more ago have been lost.
> Hell, a lot of the newer Wii Us are already dying due to flash failure just from being switched off for a few years.
I thought I heard that this is actually a specific brand with chip defects.
Googling found: https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew
Its mostly the hynix flash chips.
I thought I heard that this is actually a specific brand with chip defects.
Googling found: https://hackmd.io/d12Fq9g-QlCjN2HJp7Yvew
Its mostly the hynix flash chips.
I dont know since when but for some strange reason HN has turned into anti IP, anti patent ( good or bad, software or not ) or basically everything should be free, that type of ideological mentality. And it has been going on for more than few years. Just want to say a big thank you for continue to comment and contributing on HN. Hopefully I get to read more of your work on Anandtech.
That is not an answer as to "how to play old games". Quite often, games are modified (besides remastering/rereleasing) in the process.
"Protected in any way possible"? Why should copyright holders with money get that benefit, but those without money are screwed?
"Protected in any way possible"? Why should copyright holders with money get that benefit, but those without money are screwed?
I would say it’s more about establishing legal boundaries.
The Wii was the first console to use digital signatures; which would make it the first console to really invoke DMCA Section 1201 when prior consoles did not. Establishing out the gate that this tramples on 1201 could be extremely important in the future. Section 1201 is also what overrides Bleam and other prior emulator lawsuits - they didn’t have cryptographic keys protected by law flying around.
Because, how long until Yuzu is on the Steam store? And if Nintendo didn’t take action for the Wii (the first one protected under the title), defending against Yuzu is much harder.
The Wii was the first console to use digital signatures; which would make it the first console to really invoke DMCA Section 1201 when prior consoles did not. Establishing out the gate that this tramples on 1201 could be extremely important in the future. Section 1201 is also what overrides Bleam and other prior emulator lawsuits - they didn’t have cryptographic keys protected by law flying around.
Because, how long until Yuzu is on the Steam store? And if Nintendo didn’t take action for the Wii (the first one protected under the title), defending against Yuzu is much harder.
Cryptographic key doesn't matter. It's covered explicitly under the exemptions listed in Section 1201. Discovering the cryptographic key using reverse engineering and using it for system interoperability is legal. They explicitly call this out:
> to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
Nintendo has no standing.
> to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
Nintendo has no standing.
If only it were that easy. The EFF had long warned that the interoperability exception is legally much weaker when it conflicts with 1201 than it appears, and is (in their view) legally almost useless.
“The "act" prohibition, set out in section 1201(a)(1), prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works ("access controls"). So, for example, this provision makes it unlawful to defeat the encryption system used on DVD movies. This ban on acts of circumvention applies even where the purpose for decrypting the movie would otherwise be legitimate. As a result, it is unlawful to make a digital copy ("rip") of a DVD you own for playback on your video iPod.
The "tools" prohibitions, set out in sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b), outlaw the manufacture, sale, distribution, or trafficking of tools and technologies that make circumvention possible. These provisions ban both technologies that defeat access controls, and also technologies that defeat use restrictions imposed by copyright owners, such as copy controls. These provisions prohibit the distribution of "DVD back-up" software, for example.
Section 1201 includes a number of exceptions for certain limited classes of activities, including security testing, reverse engineering of software, encryption research, and law enforcement. These exceptions have been extensively criticized as being too narrow to be of real use to the constituencies who they were intended to assist.“
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-seven-year...
This comes up elsewhere on this Hacker News thread, because Dolphin actually does contain a Nintendo encryption key. Which makes Dolphin almost indistinguishable from, say, a DVD ripper or counterfeit DVD player, which this law was specifically designed to crush.
If you want a further example, look into Apple v Psystar, where Psystar broke Apple’s DMCA 1201 locks to run macOS on unofficial hardware with “interoperability between hardware” being one of their many legal defenses. They were squashed in hearing after hearing and declared bankruptcy after having exhausted all legal options.
“The "act" prohibition, set out in section 1201(a)(1), prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works ("access controls"). So, for example, this provision makes it unlawful to defeat the encryption system used on DVD movies. This ban on acts of circumvention applies even where the purpose for decrypting the movie would otherwise be legitimate. As a result, it is unlawful to make a digital copy ("rip") of a DVD you own for playback on your video iPod.
The "tools" prohibitions, set out in sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b), outlaw the manufacture, sale, distribution, or trafficking of tools and technologies that make circumvention possible. These provisions ban both technologies that defeat access controls, and also technologies that defeat use restrictions imposed by copyright owners, such as copy controls. These provisions prohibit the distribution of "DVD back-up" software, for example.
Section 1201 includes a number of exceptions for certain limited classes of activities, including security testing, reverse engineering of software, encryption research, and law enforcement. These exceptions have been extensively criticized as being too narrow to be of real use to the constituencies who they were intended to assist.“
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-seven-year...
This comes up elsewhere on this Hacker News thread, because Dolphin actually does contain a Nintendo encryption key. Which makes Dolphin almost indistinguishable from, say, a DVD ripper or counterfeit DVD player, which this law was specifically designed to crush.
If you want a further example, look into Apple v Psystar, where Psystar broke Apple’s DMCA 1201 locks to run macOS on unofficial hardware with “interoperability between hardware” being one of their many legal defenses. They were squashed in hearing after hearing and declared bankruptcy after having exhausted all legal options.
> As a result, it is unlawful to make a digital copy ("rip") of a DVD you own for playback on your video iPod.
Strictly speaking, this is true. It is not unlawful to plug a DVD player into your iPod and play the DVD back digitally though. That's basically what Dolphin is doing - it runs unmodified disc images, copy protection and all. They've even abstained from using code or insights gained from the Wii's source code leak. The emulator should be clean, outside of any legal complaints about "damages".
You're correct to highlight that it's still an ambiguous area, but in a post-Bleem! world it's hard for Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony to find the legal willpower to stop these people. They'll settle for easy wins like harassing Valve's legal staff with scary looking letters instead.
> If you want a further example, look into Apple v Psystar
There's more recent precedent with Corellium. Their commercial product is allowed to create iOS VMs on unofficial hardware. Running their code is considered fair use, the most valid legal claim Apple had for shutting them down was their violation of icon and wallpaper trademarks.
Strictly speaking, this is true. It is not unlawful to plug a DVD player into your iPod and play the DVD back digitally though. That's basically what Dolphin is doing - it runs unmodified disc images, copy protection and all. They've even abstained from using code or insights gained from the Wii's source code leak. The emulator should be clean, outside of any legal complaints about "damages".
You're correct to highlight that it's still an ambiguous area, but in a post-Bleem! world it's hard for Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony to find the legal willpower to stop these people. They'll settle for easy wins like harassing Valve's legal staff with scary looking letters instead.
> If you want a further example, look into Apple v Psystar
There's more recent precedent with Corellium. Their commercial product is allowed to create iOS VMs on unofficial hardware. Running their code is considered fair use, the most valid legal claim Apple had for shutting them down was their violation of icon and wallpaper trademarks.
> It is not unlawful to plug a DVD player into your iPod and play the DVD back digitally though. That's basically what Dolphin is doing - it runs unmodified disc images, copy protection and all.
If it can play disc images with copy protection, it de facto requires a way around that copy protection that is unlicensed, slamming it squarely into Section 1201.
> The emulator should be clean, outside of any legal complaints about "damages".
Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys; which is actually very likely illegal when the rest of the emulator is not. Recall 09 F9…
A competing emulator developer (for Citra) has also commented on this and said what Dolphin did there was legally dangerous and very much not endorsed by courts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/13ss1o9/comment/...
> Their commercial product is allowed to create iOS VMs on unofficial hardware.
If you read the ruling, the fair use won because Corellium successfully argued there was no way that their product could impact Apple in any substantial negative way in the general market. They also argued that their products do not perform as substitutes to any products that Apple provides. And lastly, their products offer a unique benefit for a unique, niche, special interest, with vetting and similar procedures to ensure only people with those interests used their software.
If, however, they had done that to make their own smartphones, or a general iOS emulator for playing games on PC, they would have been annihilated. Nintendo easily has a case that emulation causes substantial financial and business harm; and that emulation can serve as a replacement for their products. Courts don’t like that.
Edit (“posting too fast”):
Unlike the GameCube, Wii games are digitally signed and encrypted.
This specific line of code contains the illegal key:
https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a...
As the developer of Citra (above) noted, big no-no. The emulator is legally fine, but encryption keys are a no-go. Bleam was OK because keys were not involved. Every case that has involved keys for a non-extremely-specific use (Psystar, RealPlayer, VidAngel) has gone down in flames.
If it can play disc images with copy protection, it de facto requires a way around that copy protection that is unlicensed, slamming it squarely into Section 1201.
> The emulator should be clean, outside of any legal complaints about "damages".
Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys; which is actually very likely illegal when the rest of the emulator is not. Recall 09 F9…
A competing emulator developer (for Citra) has also commented on this and said what Dolphin did there was legally dangerous and very much not endorsed by courts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/13ss1o9/comment/...
> Their commercial product is allowed to create iOS VMs on unofficial hardware.
If you read the ruling, the fair use won because Corellium successfully argued there was no way that their product could impact Apple in any substantial negative way in the general market. They also argued that their products do not perform as substitutes to any products that Apple provides. And lastly, their products offer a unique benefit for a unique, niche, special interest, with vetting and similar procedures to ensure only people with those interests used their software.
If, however, they had done that to make their own smartphones, or a general iOS emulator for playing games on PC, they would have been annihilated. Nintendo easily has a case that emulation causes substantial financial and business harm; and that emulation can serve as a replacement for their products. Courts don’t like that.
Edit (“posting too fast”):
Unlike the GameCube, Wii games are digitally signed and encrypted.
This specific line of code contains the illegal key:
https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a...
As the developer of Citra (above) noted, big no-no. The emulator is legally fine, but encryption keys are a no-go. Bleam was OK because keys were not involved. Every case that has involved keys for a non-extremely-specific use (Psystar, RealPlayer, VidAngel) has gone down in flames.
> If it can play disc images with copy protection
> Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys
I don't believe it does. Wii U emulator CEMU requires them to boot, and Citra the 3DS emulator also requires them. The Wii seems to have no copy protection to speak of, besides it's rudimentary disk check/hashing routine. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though.
> the fair use won because Corellium successfully argued there was no way that their product could impact Apple in any substantial way regarding security research
> Nintendo easily has a case that emulation causes substantial financial and business harm
So did Sony. Bleem even used screenshots of their official, licensed games to advertise their commercial alternative to owning a Playstation, and a judge deemed it lawful: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=1183722407805...
From the appeal:
> To the extent Bleem merely approximates what the PlayStation games look like, by generating screen shots through a process of degrading a computer image, it is simply creating a simulation. If Bleem insists on generating simulated approximations of Sony's games, there is no need for Bleem to use Sony's copyrighted material whatsoever.
Again - there is still ambiguity in these rulings, especially for modern console emulators. It's easy to scare Steam into taking this down since Valve doesn't want to take the fall for emulators. That being said, a true cease-and-desist scenario for Dolphin is likely unlawful, given the precedent and context.
Edit in response to your edit: Citra's developer is right - this is brazen. But it's also a legal can of worms Nintendo cannot guarantee a win on. Their claim is that it violates the Copyright Act, which they would then have to defend against the DMCA amendments that give explicit protections to many classes of usage. If "the key" is their objection, Nintendo's copyright complaint will be about as effective as the DeCSS moratorium.
> Dolphin contains Nintendo decryption keys
I don't believe it does. Wii U emulator CEMU requires them to boot, and Citra the 3DS emulator also requires them. The Wii seems to have no copy protection to speak of, besides it's rudimentary disk check/hashing routine. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though.
> the fair use won because Corellium successfully argued there was no way that their product could impact Apple in any substantial way regarding security research
> Nintendo easily has a case that emulation causes substantial financial and business harm
So did Sony. Bleem even used screenshots of their official, licensed games to advertise their commercial alternative to owning a Playstation, and a judge deemed it lawful: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=1183722407805...
From the appeal:
> To the extent Bleem merely approximates what the PlayStation games look like, by generating screen shots through a process of degrading a computer image, it is simply creating a simulation. If Bleem insists on generating simulated approximations of Sony's games, there is no need for Bleem to use Sony's copyrighted material whatsoever.
Again - there is still ambiguity in these rulings, especially for modern console emulators. It's easy to scare Steam into taking this down since Valve doesn't want to take the fall for emulators. That being said, a true cease-and-desist scenario for Dolphin is likely unlawful, given the precedent and context.
Edit in response to your edit: Citra's developer is right - this is brazen. But it's also a legal can of worms Nintendo cannot guarantee a win on. Their claim is that it violates the Copyright Act, which they would then have to defend against the DMCA amendments that give explicit protections to many classes of usage. If "the key" is their objection, Nintendo's copyright complaint will be about as effective as the DeCSS moratorium.
[deleted]
> I don't believe it does.
The aes keys checked in to their GitHub are linked elsewhere in this comment section.
The aes keys checked in to their GitHub are linked elsewhere in this comment section.
What about Sony vs. Connectix? That case seems to have established that US copyright law does not confer a monopoly on devices or software to play commercial games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_I....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_I....
They was both A) a case decided before the DMCA was law, and B) the DRM system of the PS1 is pretty much solely focused on legitimate PS1s only playing legitimate discs; there's nothing in most games stopping other systems from reading everything off the disc freely in cleartext.
> a case decided before the DMCA was law
Decided in 2000, and the DMCA was signed into law in 1998?
Decided in 2000, and the DMCA was signed into law in 1998?
I can say pretty confidently that the original Xbox had (and verified) digital signatures.
I’m sorry, I should have said first Nintendo console. The earlier Nintendo consoles had no ROM encryption and used heavily physical protection methods (odd disc sizes, lockout chips).
Video games have had digital rights management since the first Nintendo game system in the mid 80a
Not surprising it was _Just Dance_ The 2019 one was the last XBOX 360 title too.
If that exists, it furthers the point for a (high entry barrier) separate internet for responsible folks. Some things are better left out of the spotlight given this IP regime...
And yet that didn't seem to stop the average schmoe from accessing Silk Road if they intended to.
"Information wants to be free" as the adage goes.
"Information wants to be free" as the adage goes.
Maybe the separate internet was an exaggeration, but there are things I would never post on a frequently visited public forum, because they're best left unspoken or found if you look for/hear about them in private-ish convo (like emulators/ROMs), given the legislative climate around them. Too much (stimulated) popularity can be poison.
I think they were crazy to even try. Just let it exist within RetroArch - in-fact I hope it doesn’t draw attention to RetroArch after this incident
Have to agree with this.
Nintendo is infamously litigious. I know that many people say the debate over emulators is "settled" and they are perfectly legal, but I'd rather not poke the bear and just keep things as they are.
Emulators are an invaluable tool for game preservation...and I don't want to see one of, if not the best emulator ever, be forced to cease development.
Nintendo is infamously litigious. I know that many people say the debate over emulators is "settled" and they are perfectly legal, but I'd rather not poke the bear and just keep things as they are.
Emulators are an invaluable tool for game preservation...and I don't want to see one of, if not the best emulator ever, be forced to cease development.
Is it your position that no entity should ever try to challenge a big company's interpretation of the law, however ridiculous it may be? At that point, why even have a judicial system?
Because the last time it was litigated in the US, the good guys won. But SCEA v. Bleem was over 20 years ago, and there's no guarantee that the courts won't roll back protections for emulation development.
NoA is notoriously vindictive & litigious, and they have more money than the Dolphin devs. Even though Sony lost the case, the lawsuit ruined Bleem. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Nintendo will try to do the same thing to Dolphin, Ryujinx, Yuzu, etc.
NoA is notoriously vindictive & litigious, and they have more money than the Dolphin devs. Even though Sony lost the case, the lawsuit ruined Bleem. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Nintendo will try to do the same thing to Dolphin, Ryujinx, Yuzu, etc.
So when a bigcorp says jump you expect everyone to just do so?
I think the point is, you’re welcome to place yourself in Nintendos crosshairs, and we’ll cheer you on as you pit your billions against Nintendos billions, fighting for a favorable ruling.
Dolphin developers apparently are not in a position to pit billions against Nintendo. Can’t blame them either.
Dolphin developers apparently are not in a position to pit billions against Nintendo. Can’t blame them either.
dingledork69(2)
It’s an expensive theory to test. I would imagine most OSS projects or their contributors are not in a financial position to get to court, let alone see the trial to a conclusion.
I don’t know what to do about it, but it seems we’ve fell into aristocracy of ruling corporations.
I don’t know what to do about it, but it seems we’ve fell into aristocracy of ruling corporations.
That's what advocate and civil rights organizations are for. I bet the likes of the EFF would be very interested in taking this case. It aligns with their incentives to take down the DMCA.
If EFF is very interested, they can find a way to test it themselves. But here, even with EFF's help the developers would be still exposed to risk. EFF is not able to say "we'll fight this for you, pay 100% of expenses and your time's worth, and go jail instead of you if things turn really bad".
The main point is that it's not a good survival strategy for a hobbyist project that may draw the ire of a big company: even if the companies legal action is completely frivolous, it can easily destroy the project (basically the only option they actually have is enough public outcry to get the company to back off due to the bad publicity). Generally speaking laying low is the better option. It sucks, and it's a big problem with the current judicial system, but it is the status quo. It would take someone able and willing to put some serious resources into a risky bet to change that.
Sometimes it's just better to settle for good enough, or in this case pretty damn good.
But no, some of you want the most convenient way. Only this time, that's painted a massive target on the back of what you want.
But no, some of you want the most convenient way. Only this time, that's painted a massive target on the back of what you want.
Every interaction with IP law is a total gamble and if you lose you are gone forever. It's best to take as few gambles as possible
Many people agree but don't have the resources or are risking too much if they try.
If you think you can make a difference, the world will welcome you.
If you think you can make a difference, the world will welcome you.
While Nintendo is infamously litigious, there's speculation (without concrete evidence either way) that the recent string of DMCA takedown requests were not made by Nintendo themselves, but by someone impersonating them (as for why, who knows, some people get very caught up in the "emulation hurts game studios" line of thinking).
That seems implausible. There's only one way for the sender of a DMCA takedown notice to get in serious trouble, and that's by lying about being authorized by the copyright holder to send DMCA notices over their works:
> 17 U.S. Code §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis added)
> 17 U.S. Code §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis added)
Submitting a DMCA takedown request does not require any authentication beyond a declaration that you're telling the truth. Anyone can do it, even over a Tor connection.
A DMCA notice requires the aforementioned declaration under penalty of perjury, plus some other declarations that are merely required to be good faith beliefs, plus contact information for the sender.
That last bit makes it quite easy to discover that a DMCA notice was faked, thus quite risky for the sender: either they provide contact information for themselves that will be repudiated by the actual copyright holder should anyone question it, or they provide contact information for the actual copyright holder and are unable to carry the charade beyond the initial message and the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect (plus they'd catch the notice of the actual corporate legal department, who are unlikely to appreciate the impersonation).
That last bit makes it quite easy to discover that a DMCA notice was faked, thus quite risky for the sender: either they provide contact information for themselves that will be repudiated by the actual copyright holder should anyone question it, or they provide contact information for the actual copyright holder and are unable to carry the charade beyond the initial message and the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect (plus they'd catch the notice of the actual corporate legal department, who are unlikely to appreciate the impersonation).
> the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect
I wonder how often a DMCA recipient actually bothers with a counterclaim, though? I thought counter-notices were extremely risky, particularly when dealing with a (seemingly) deep-pocketed entity. Doesn't a counterclaim open oneself up to immediate ligitation within 2 weeks, else the content must remain?
If it is in fact the rightsholder, I assume they won't be happy to simply let the allegedly infringing content stand - which means they have to sue. Of course, if one really believes the claim to be bogus, they can always test it in court. They might even be right, but I suspect they'll be bankrupt nonetheless.
I guess the solution is to just reach out to the listed contact directly... Without it being in the form of a counterclaim? I love this system.
I wonder how often a DMCA recipient actually bothers with a counterclaim, though? I thought counter-notices were extremely risky, particularly when dealing with a (seemingly) deep-pocketed entity. Doesn't a counterclaim open oneself up to immediate ligitation within 2 weeks, else the content must remain?
If it is in fact the rightsholder, I assume they won't be happy to simply let the allegedly infringing content stand - which means they have to sue. Of course, if one really believes the claim to be bogus, they can always test it in court. They might even be right, but I suspect they'll be bankrupt nonetheless.
I guess the solution is to just reach out to the listed contact directly... Without it being in the form of a counterclaim? I love this system.
If you infringe someone's copyright they can take legal action at any time. The 2 week timeline is just how long your content takes to be reactivated if they aren't sueing you.
I've worked in the field.
Almost nobody bothers with a counter notice.
It's just risky.
Either they ignore it and you have to evaluate whether you'll gain or lose money by suing (oftentimes that's not the case, good luck bringing to court some 13 years old living in a different country and making 2k per month from ads) or they just comply as soon as possible to avoid legal drama.
Either they ignore it and you have to evaluate whether you'll gain or lose money by suing (oftentimes that's not the case, good luck bringing to court some 13 years old living in a different country and making 2k per month from ads) or they just comply as soon as possible to avoid legal drama.
There's no way to actually enforce the penalty of perjury in many cases. I've tried before, lots of big companies will ignore you when you try to get the information on the person who filed the fraudulent claim, which prevents you from doing anything about it. Unless you feel like also suing Google or Valve.
Yikes, this should be more well known. The bigcorps enjoying and abusing their protection from the law, while bullying people into submitting from them and shielding their own workers from any consequences.
If it was all that risky for the sender, people abusing DMCA to tale down youtube videos they dislike would not be as common as it is. The vast majority of the time nothing happens to the claimant and the person claimed to just has to take the punishment.
[deleted]
[deleted]
penalty of perjury works how exactly? because there are a number of high profile politicians or directors from 3 letter agencies who have been found to lie under perjury and as far as I know no one has ever gone to jail. sounds like its a free card to play.
Has anyone faced consequences as a result?
I don't think anyone intelligent enough to compose something resembling a valid DMCA takedown notice would be stupid enough to fake it in that particular manner, when the law deliberately leaves much wider and safer gaps for a sender to abuse the takedown process.
How about if you don’t live in the US? A few million lawsuit is not going to get you extradited, but let’s say the dmca request was created in Russia.
Not even then. Copyright infringement is normally tried in the infringer's jurisdiction.
So got any links to such cases? Its 100% certain some kids have sent invalid DMCA notices over the years. It's basically a prank that doesn't get you into trouble, at this point.
Whoever's been trying to wipe the game Cookie's Bustle off the internet clearly hasn't been punished at all, even when they pretended to be Nintendo.
What even is the point of emulators being legal if they have to tiptoe around the whims of companies like Nintendo? People have the right to run their software after the hardware required to run it has been discontinued, and emulators are the way to do that.
That Nintendo is overly litigious because they want to make easy money rereleasing their classics on every new console generation forever doesn't mean they can stomp over that right, and emulators should be free to distribute themselves how they wish.
That Nintendo is overly litigious because they want to make easy money rereleasing their classics on every new console generation forever doesn't mean they can stomp over that right, and emulators should be free to distribute themselves how they wish.
Nintendo themselves use emulators.
The general opinion of every emulator author I have met that has had their work subsumed into RetroArch can be summarized as
"Fuck RetroArch"
"Fuck RetroArch"
I'd echo this sentiment. The MAME developer I know absolutely detests Retroarch as a project
I agree. It was a totally reckless move, attracting a bunch of dangerous attention, and I would not be surprised if it causes the end of Dolphin or even RetroArch in general
I'm intrigued as to why they DMCA'd the Steam version when it's available on the Play Store and has been for quite a while.
I wonder if it's driven by the Steam Deck being a Switch-like device and they see it as a threat to any future plans of releasing GameCube/Wii games on NSO.
Then again Nintendo still insists that emulators are blanket illegal despite the disagreement of (at least US) court rulings, so maybe I'm looking too far into things.
I wonder if it's driven by the Steam Deck being a Switch-like device and they see it as a threat to any future plans of releasing GameCube/Wii games on NSO.
Then again Nintendo still insists that emulators are blanket illegal despite the disagreement of (at least US) court rulings, so maybe I'm looking too far into things.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of the Steam Deck hardware. Also possible all the news coverage of leaked copies of 'Tears of the Kingdom' running on the Steam Deck prompted Nintendo to want to take a more aggressive posture towards emulation generally (even if dolphin doesn't emulate switch)
Yeah I think it’s because the Steam Deck is very similar to the Switch, whose sales have been declining drastically the last year or two. Recently a big wig at Nintendo said something to the effect of “we want people who already own a switch to buy a second switch”, a “one in every room” type of deal.
To me at least, playing emulated games on something like a phone is unpleasant, because of the on-screen, touch controls. It sours the nostalgia and is plain ol unpleasant. The controls use part of the screen and aren’t tactile at all.
To me at least, playing emulated games on something like a phone is unpleasant, because of the on-screen, touch controls. It sours the nostalgia and is plain ol unpleasant. The controls use part of the screen and aren’t tactile at all.
I cynically think its all in retribution to teach all of those who would dare emulate Nintendo a lesson... As all of the takedowns since the Tears of the Kingdom leak seem to be. All in all it just steels my resolve never to give Nintendo money.
is the Steam deck powerful enough to run Dolphin?
Yes. Sometimes it can even run better than native Switch games better than the Switch itself, but sometimes it doesn't. IIRC it depends on the game.
Dolphin doesn’t run Switch games.
Oh, I got completely confused. I guess that changes the answer to "almost everything can run well on dolphin on the Deck"
Yuzu does, though, and Yuzu runs so well on the Steam deck that it was accidentally shown in the launch video. You have youtubers saying to buy a steam deck and sell their switch for spare cash to offset the cost of the deck.
Nintendo is trying to do to its consoles and the 90s game nostalgia in general what Disney has done with the last 40 years or so of media: become the arbiter of this content by being an impossible to confront megalith.
Nintendo is trying to do to its consoles and the 90s game nostalgia in general what Disney has done with the last 40 years or so of media: become the arbiter of this content by being an impossible to confront megalith.
Valve < Nintendo << Google?
Maybe but I doubt either Google, Valve or any marketplace would intercede on Dolphin's behalf and risk their safe harbor.
What'll be interesting to see is if Dolphin officially objects, and if Valve reinstate it on that basis.
What'll be interesting to see is if Dolphin officially objects, and if Valve reinstate it on that basis.
I got to play Zelda BOTW on linux using steam and some emulators.
then I even bought a switch controller and was able to get the motion control to work.
then I realized I had more fun setting it all up and didn't even bother to finish the game
then I even bought a switch controller and was able to get the motion control to work.
then I realized I had more fun setting it all up and didn't even bother to finish the game
You’re really missing out. It’s a beautiful game.
I never liked BotW apart from the initial "shock" of exploration. It felt very empty and almost unfinished. Particularly in terms of the enemy and gameplay variety and the quests. I realise now that this is because TotK is the actually completed version. BotW feels like a tech demo now
After hearing users talk about it here on HN in 2020, I bought a Switch just to play BOTW - it was worth it. The sequel isn't as beautiful of a game play though.
I disagree. I find TOTK to be much more polished and they fixed everything that annoyed me in the first game.
I agree that it’s much more polished. However, because you can constantly just get into the skies and glide over everything, you (or, at least, I) don’t get as much of a “feeling” for the world as in BotW. I still remember several situations where I stumbled over a mountain, or forest, etc., in BotW and there was suddenly a whole different atmosphere. I didn’t encounter that in TotK, yet (the different layers of the map don’t feel the same, the BotW instances were more “intimate”).
> you (or, at least, I) don’t get as much of a “feeling” for the world as in BotW.
The world of BotW felt barren and empty, so maybe that‘s a good thing. It was huge, but not a lot going on. It felt like a lifeless desert with some events sprinkled throughout.
The world of BotW felt barren and empty, so maybe that‘s a good thing. It was huge, but not a lot going on. It felt like a lifeless desert with some events sprinkled throughout.
It's very much a sequel set in the same world. The original still exists, and allows you to experience the feeling of exploring a world after the end.
Tears doesn't want to repeat the exact same limited experience of exploration you had with the last game. It tries for something different.
Tears doesn't want to repeat the exact same limited experience of exploration you had with the last game. It tries for something different.
Huh? The sequel is the perfect video game sequel and improves on a once in a decade masterpiece in every possible way.
you're missing part of my point (granted, I was not explicitly stated)
that what I find most enjoyable (by this point, at my "advanced age") is setting it all up, it was not that simple to get it all working
I have to start some command line daemons, I had to get some kernel modules, I had to recalibrate the thumb joysticks, etc...
after all this fun clicking around my PC, the game became almost an after thought... I did play around, brilliant game. the superb quality on release was impressive...
that what I find most enjoyable (by this point, at my "advanced age") is setting it all up, it was not that simple to get it all working
I have to start some command line daemons, I had to get some kernel modules, I had to recalibrate the thumb joysticks, etc...
after all this fun clicking around my PC, the game became almost an after thought... I did play around, brilliant game. the superb quality on release was impressive...
Nintendo is famous for being trigger-happy with DMCA requests. They shut down tons of Youtube videos that no other gaming company would even think of striking, like speedruns. Some Youtubers won't even cover Nintendo games for fear of a takedown (3 strikes and you are out).
Nintendo are an awful companies and their fanboys are as aggressive as scientologists.
Here is a strategy Nintendo could follow that would help:
Oprn their own PC based game store
Sell only Nintendo first party games in it
Require a Nintendo online account
They would defeat whatever is bothering them and make a lot of money
But they won’t do this
Oprn their own PC based game store
Sell only Nintendo first party games in it
Require a Nintendo online account
They would defeat whatever is bothering them and make a lot of money
But they won’t do this
Because why would they? They would have to dedicate a shitload of resources to optimizing decades of work for PC so a small slice of the market can buy old stuff. All of those games would stop being a hacky thing you're okay with bugs on to a thing Nintendo now needs to support. Not only software, but widely varying hardware and worse yet, controllers. There's simply no way they release wii games as paid products on PC and make a satisfying experience with a keyboard/mouse.
I have seen this idea now suggested multiple times. Nintendo's business model is sound. Protect the "official" experience at any cost so that it's 100% clear when you're playing on a Nintendo console vs a non-official emulator. Blocking dolphin's steam release is consistent with this goal; if it's on steam, it looks like a real product and non-tech people might start to think it's official.
I have seen this idea now suggested multiple times. Nintendo's business model is sound. Protect the "official" experience at any cost so that it's 100% clear when you're playing on a Nintendo console vs a non-official emulator. Blocking dolphin's steam release is consistent with this goal; if it's on steam, it looks like a real product and non-tech people might start to think it's official.
Emulating old systems on new systems is something Nintendo successfully did in the past, monetizing unmonetizable.
> so a small slice of the market can buy old stuff
You might be underestimating the size of this slice. Nintendo is fundamentally a toy company, just like say Lego, and they rely on pretty much the same process: indoctrinating kids into using their products, then waiting until they grow up so they help indoctrinate their own kids. The control over this process might be more important than the sales figures.
They already lost several generations of kids in Latin America and former USSR precisely because they failed to control the pirated clones market there. (either ignoring these markets or being too heavy handed in them; it's a long story). The piracy is happening with or without them.
However, as a toy company, they are focused on physical products more than software, so they probably aren't ready for the emulation on the hardware not designed by them.
> so a small slice of the market can buy old stuff
You might be underestimating the size of this slice. Nintendo is fundamentally a toy company, just like say Lego, and they rely on pretty much the same process: indoctrinating kids into using their products, then waiting until they grow up so they help indoctrinate their own kids. The control over this process might be more important than the sales figures.
They already lost several generations of kids in Latin America and former USSR precisely because they failed to control the pirated clones market there. (either ignoring these markets or being too heavy handed in them; it's a long story). The piracy is happening with or without them.
However, as a toy company, they are focused on physical products more than software, so they probably aren't ready for the emulation on the hardware not designed by them.
I think you're underestimating the effort required to complete the task you're suggesting, probably by multiple orders of magnitude.
The point that people seem to not get is that Nintendo's entire brand rides almost entirely on having a "perfect" experience. Word is that they spent an extra year just on polish for TOTK; having played it myself, I believe it. No game is this quality on release on any other platform. They have their walled garden in the switch (and previous consoles) where they make sure it works absolutely perfectly, and it costs them a lot just to do that. I believe it might be literally impossible for any company to achieve that reputation under any other circumstance, and the polar opposite circumstance is emulating your game on the hyper-chaotic hardware situation that is PC gaming. Not to mention the fact that modern emulators almost universally offer things that Nintendo wouldn't dare: upscaled textures, higher FPS (this is a huge one that causes a litany of bugs), mods, etc. Even a release to PC wouldn't matter because people would demand parity with what emulators offer or just go back to them.
Look at this list: https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_games
What you are suggesting would require the following for every one of them:
1. Thorough testing for performance and stability to ensure a PC port works at all
2. Thorough testing of innumerable hardware configurations
3. Thorough testing of every conceivable type of controller, display, keyboard/mouse, etc.
4. Ongoing support of some sort, forever.
Nintendo's focus on quality means that what you're asking is probably a multi-trillion dollar effort that would take decades even if they increased their staffing by 10x. Do you think there's that kind of money in it for them? To top it off, I will repeat that hardware on PCs is far, far more chaotic and unpredictable than any other platform. To even attempt this would be folly; it would be guaranteed to be a buggy mess (like how emulators all have been and to some extent remain), and their main selling point would be ruined.
It seems self-evident to me that Nintendo doesn't really care about emulators for old games. They throw their weight around and make broad gestures to say they hate it, but that's the point. They know they can't stop people from doing this stuff, and they make almost no effort software-wise to prevent it. They just want people to know without any shred of doubt that if they play a nintendo game outside of a platform they have deemed worthy, they are not getting the "real" experience. This absolves them of any blame when the games inevitably don't work right, and it makes clear that they will never allow emulators to become "official" platforms. I'm sure they carefully weigh their actions to ensure they don't actually extinguish emulators, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have covertly contributed to their development at some point. These old games are unlikely to be money makers, but keeping people playing Nintendo IP will make them more interested in buying more in the future.
The point that people seem to not get is that Nintendo's entire brand rides almost entirely on having a "perfect" experience. Word is that they spent an extra year just on polish for TOTK; having played it myself, I believe it. No game is this quality on release on any other platform. They have their walled garden in the switch (and previous consoles) where they make sure it works absolutely perfectly, and it costs them a lot just to do that. I believe it might be literally impossible for any company to achieve that reputation under any other circumstance, and the polar opposite circumstance is emulating your game on the hyper-chaotic hardware situation that is PC gaming. Not to mention the fact that modern emulators almost universally offer things that Nintendo wouldn't dare: upscaled textures, higher FPS (this is a huge one that causes a litany of bugs), mods, etc. Even a release to PC wouldn't matter because people would demand parity with what emulators offer or just go back to them.
Look at this list: https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_games
What you are suggesting would require the following for every one of them:
1. Thorough testing for performance and stability to ensure a PC port works at all
2. Thorough testing of innumerable hardware configurations
3. Thorough testing of every conceivable type of controller, display, keyboard/mouse, etc.
4. Ongoing support of some sort, forever.
Nintendo's focus on quality means that what you're asking is probably a multi-trillion dollar effort that would take decades even if they increased their staffing by 10x. Do you think there's that kind of money in it for them? To top it off, I will repeat that hardware on PCs is far, far more chaotic and unpredictable than any other platform. To even attempt this would be folly; it would be guaranteed to be a buggy mess (like how emulators all have been and to some extent remain), and their main selling point would be ruined.
It seems self-evident to me that Nintendo doesn't really care about emulators for old games. They throw their weight around and make broad gestures to say they hate it, but that's the point. They know they can't stop people from doing this stuff, and they make almost no effort software-wise to prevent it. They just want people to know without any shred of doubt that if they play a nintendo game outside of a platform they have deemed worthy, they are not getting the "real" experience. This absolves them of any blame when the games inevitably don't work right, and it makes clear that they will never allow emulators to become "official" platforms. I'm sure they carefully weigh their actions to ensure they don't actually extinguish emulators, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have covertly contributed to their development at some point. These old games are unlikely to be money makers, but keeping people playing Nintendo IP will make them more interested in buying more in the future.
I think Nintendo has a similar attitude to Apple in this regard. Sure, Apple could probably make a lot of money by selling subscriptions to iMessage on non-Apple platforms, but that sacrifices control and gives people a reason not to buy their hardware.
Nintendo has historically demonstrated that both of those things are extremely important to them. For example, it's not uncommon for Sony and Microsoft to sell boxes at a loss for the first few years, making their money back in software. Nintendo typically doesn't do this.
Nintendo has historically demonstrated that both of those things are extremely important to them. For example, it's not uncommon for Sony and Microsoft to sell boxes at a loss for the first few years, making their money back in software. Nintendo typically doesn't do this.
The other thing the companies have in common are massive fanbases who will buy anything they release and defend every move they make. Both their fans have the ability to spin negative news into positive news to keep up the fantasy that the company loves them and is looking out for their fans' best interests.
At least we have the eu to help put apple in it's place
I would definitely buy a lot of Nintendo games if they were available on desktop. But they would much rather push their consoles and resell you each game each generation.
If Nintendo had a ROM store where I could buy game ROMs and play them on whatever system I wanted to, I would spend a lot of money.
In fact, Nintendo more or less did this with the Wii U, which was a commercial failure. I bought an incredible amount of games from the virtual console and oftentimes on sale for a few dollars. Then with a modded Wii U, you can extract the ROMs. Now I am playing GBA games on an actual GBA (with an upgraded screen extracted from a DSi) and SNES games on a MiSTer FPGA connected to a PVM with an original SNES controller. Ever since they shut down the Wii U online shop, there’s been no new legal way to acquire these ROMs. What a bummer and too bad the market didn’t appreciate the Wii U for what it was: the ultimate collection of past Nintendo games.
In fact, Nintendo more or less did this with the Wii U, which was a commercial failure. I bought an incredible amount of games from the virtual console and oftentimes on sale for a few dollars. Then with a modded Wii U, you can extract the ROMs. Now I am playing GBA games on an actual GBA (with an upgraded screen extracted from a DSi) and SNES games on a MiSTer FPGA connected to a PVM with an original SNES controller. Ever since they shut down the Wii U online shop, there’s been no new legal way to acquire these ROMs. What a bummer and too bad the market didn’t appreciate the Wii U for what it was: the ultimate collection of past Nintendo games.
Complete abuse of the DMCA
The DMCA was for the private encryption keys included directly inside Dolphin source code [0]. I am not defending the DMCA at all, I think it's a shit law, but let's be clear, I can't think of a clearer example of a valid DMCA violation. It is circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work [1]. Defending it by saying the work is non-infringing is fighting a very losing battle, you would have to attack the DMCA at its core in order to come out on top here.
[0] https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/master/Source/Co...
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
[0] https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/master/Source/Co...
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
> It is circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work
To be fair, the law is worded so poorly that I'm not sure that _anything_ can be considered a "clear" example of it. How can a measure be "effective" if it can be circumvented? If you're going to define "effective" in any way that includes this, you're going to need to explain why it wouldn't apply equally well to a loading screen message calling "dibs" when the game starts up. It's just as effective up until the point that you circumvent it (by just ignoring it)!
I do think that this is the type of thing that's _intended_ to be against this law, but it's hard to take that seriously as an argument that this justifies legal action when the view that laws should be read exactly as written and not "interpreted" for intent is promulgated with such fervor in many political circles.
To be fair, the law is worded so poorly that I'm not sure that _anything_ can be considered a "clear" example of it. How can a measure be "effective" if it can be circumvented? If you're going to define "effective" in any way that includes this, you're going to need to explain why it wouldn't apply equally well to a loading screen message calling "dibs" when the game starts up. It's just as effective up until the point that you circumvent it (by just ignoring it)!
I do think that this is the type of thing that's _intended_ to be against this law, but it's hard to take that seriously as an argument that this justifies legal action when the view that laws should be read exactly as written and not "interpreted" for intent is promulgated with such fervor in many political circles.
> How can a measure be "effective" if it can be circumvented?
"Effective" is defined in the law. It basically means any copy protection measure which, during the normal course of its operation (i.e., the happy path), prevents unauthorized copying. A bit of JavaScript that disables "Save Image As" qualifies. If you write a browser extension that knocks out that JavaScript, you could be civilly and criminally liable under the DMCA.
"Effective" is defined in the law. It basically means any copy protection measure which, during the normal course of its operation (i.e., the happy path), prevents unauthorized copying. A bit of JavaScript that disables "Save Image As" qualifies. If you write a browser extension that knocks out that JavaScript, you could be civilly and criminally liable under the DMCA.
By "effective" it means "that has the effect of"
I don't see how that clarifies anything; what effect does a measure that's been circumvented have, and how does it differ from the effect of a message of "dibs" that some people decide to abide by?
The law says that nobody shall circumvent a technical protection measure that has the effect of controlling access to a copyrighted work.
The access isn't very controlled if you give all your customers the key, now, is it?
Okay, so how is my access controlled if I circumvent the measure? And how does that not apply equally well to me just being told in a "technical" way not to access something?
In the same way that you are still trespassing even if you can easily step over a fence saying "no entry". Try going to a judge and saying "well the sign lied, because yes I was able to entry when it said I shouldn't be able to"
Crimes are not based on technicalities, they are based on intent. The environment put up resistance and signs to let you know it was trying to effectively control your access. You just willfully ignored them and stepped over the fence anyway.
Crimes are not based on technicalities, they are based on intent. The environment put up resistance and signs to let you know it was trying to effectively control your access. You just willfully ignored them and stepped over the fence anyway.
You are strawmanning the law whereas a judge interpreting it will steelman it.
Exactly. A judge will not interpret the law as only outlawing what is impossible.
And the law does provide a definition:
> a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
And the law does provide a definition:
> a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
This is just continuing to move the question into new language that's not any less obtuse; if the game comes on a cartridge and I need to copy it onto a computer to put in an emulator, and the game's loading screen tells me not to, how is this not "a process" that doesn't have "the authority of the copyright owner" even if it's not encrypted in any way? Even more preposterously, if the game tells me I can only play on Tuesdays, and when it boots up it gives me a prompt saying "press A to continue if it's Tuesday, but if it's not, shut down the console and wait until Tuesday", and I ignore that and press A on Wednesday, how am I not performing a process (pressing A) without the authority of the copyright owner (who only gave me permission on Tuesdays)?
Sure, I don't actually think that my arguments would actually hold up in court, but that's kind of my point; the law is written very poorly, which means that the _actual_ legal effect is not nearly as clear to a lay person as the original comment I was responding to was arguing. I alluded to this in my second paragraph in my comment, but I guess I could have been more explicit.
Even if I play my own games? I bought the game, I just want to play it on an emulator.
Courts have clarified that bypassing it "without the authority of the copyright owner" means the authority to access the work despite the technological protection measure. By default you can't access it without bypassing the measure.
Repeating from another subthread: if the game tells me I can only play on Tuesdays, and when it boots up it gives me a prompt saying "press A to continue if it's Tuesday, but if it's not, shut down the console and wait until Tuesday", and I ignore that and press A on Wednesday, how am I not bypassing a technical measure (requiring an input electronically to the console) without the authority of the copyright owner (who only gave me permission do to so on Tuesdays)?
Effective is very clear in legal drafting - it means that there must be a function that occurs for this purpose, not that it has to succeed.
Essentially all "effective" means is that you can't put a piece of paper in the box that says "this is a technical protection measure", you need to have some engineering that is intended to be one.
No ambiguity in the drafting here, and if you took your argument to court you would lose.
Essentially all "effective" means is that you can't put a piece of paper in the box that says "this is a technical protection measure", you need to have some engineering that is intended to be one.
No ambiguity in the drafting here, and if you took your argument to court you would lose.
That's the intention. They make the law so unclear on purpose that they can arrest you for almost anything.
If this is going to be Nintendo's 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 (or its 455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2 as this is far from the first time Nintendo's keys leaked), I doubt the courts would care.
Worst case scenario, someone in France can probably get around the problem by launching it on French Steam so people can only get the emulator through one of those throwaway VPNs. VLC managed to avoid censorship from big media companies through "foreign" law. I doubt it's worth the trouble, though.
Worst case scenario, someone in France can probably get around the problem by launching it on French Steam so people can only get the emulator through one of those throwaway VPNs. VLC managed to avoid censorship from big media companies through "foreign" law. I doubt it's worth the trouble, though.
DMCA 1201 is good law in France. America conditions trade agreements upon countries adopting equivalent language to 1201 in their local law. In the case of France, the EU Copyright Directive has had 1201-equivalent language in it since the early 2000s.
Even if it wasn't good law in France, Steam is a US platform, there is no "French Steam". You need something entirely owned and operated by non-US individuals to even have a chance of escaping US jurisdiction. Chinese domestic equivalent services would be your best bet these days, except now you have to deal with China's censorship machine, which makes the censorship[0] of not being able to release encryption keys for old videogames look like nothing.
[0] US courts have categorically rejected the argument that copyright infringement is free speech. In fact, they seem to believe the opposite: that artists not being paid in monopoly rights is censorship, and that the 1st Amendment has a sort of ROBOT9000[1] rule where copies aren't speech.
The EFF has 1st Amendment challenges to DMCA 1201 specifically but I do not expect them to be successful.
[1] An IRC bot operated by XKCD creator Randall Munroe, which was also implemented by moot in 4chan's /r9k/ board. The bot removes speech that has been spoken in the past.
Even if it wasn't good law in France, Steam is a US platform, there is no "French Steam". You need something entirely owned and operated by non-US individuals to even have a chance of escaping US jurisdiction. Chinese domestic equivalent services would be your best bet these days, except now you have to deal with China's censorship machine, which makes the censorship[0] of not being able to release encryption keys for old videogames look like nothing.
[0] US courts have categorically rejected the argument that copyright infringement is free speech. In fact, they seem to believe the opposite: that artists not being paid in monopoly rights is censorship, and that the 1st Amendment has a sort of ROBOT9000[1] rule where copies aren't speech.
The EFF has 1st Amendment challenges to DMCA 1201 specifically but I do not expect them to be successful.
[1] An IRC bot operated by XKCD creator Randall Munroe, which was also implemented by moot in 4chan's /r9k/ board. The bot removes speech that has been spoken in the past.
Are you sure those are Nintendo AES keys? The comments above suggest they're not:
// Dolphin does not use the same "default" values as IOS does, as we do not emulate unblown
// scenario.
Yes, they are Nintendo's private keys. I believe the comment is referring to the early factory programming stage of the console, though I'm not 100% sure. PCGamer.com also confirmed the DMCA notice says it's about encryption keys [0]
> The DCMA letter sent to Valve cites the anti-circumvention language of the DMCA and specifically claims that "the Dolphin emulator operates by incorporating these cryptographic keys without Nintendo’s authorization and decrypting the ROMs at or immediately before runtime. Thus, use of the Dolphin emulator unlawfully 'circumvent[s] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under' the Copyright Act."
> If they're Nintendo's keys, why would they DMCA a Steam page but not a GitHub repository that's distributing the keys?
Because Nintendo's legal department is not dumb and makes very specific takedown requests that they know they can win, as opposed to taking down more gray-area things like source code.
Grabbing an emulator from dolphin-emu.org or GitHub is not the same thing as grabbing an emulator from a well-moderated public storefront where a good number of your third-party partners also publish their games.
Nintendo does not publish their games on Steam as of right now, but for an analogy, imagine how happy Sony would be if a PS4 emulator showed up on Steam recommended right next to their other PC games.
This was always playing with fire.
[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/nintendo-sends-valve-dmca-notice-to-...
> The DCMA letter sent to Valve cites the anti-circumvention language of the DMCA and specifically claims that "the Dolphin emulator operates by incorporating these cryptographic keys without Nintendo’s authorization and decrypting the ROMs at or immediately before runtime. Thus, use of the Dolphin emulator unlawfully 'circumvent[s] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under' the Copyright Act."
> If they're Nintendo's keys, why would they DMCA a Steam page but not a GitHub repository that's distributing the keys?
Because Nintendo's legal department is not dumb and makes very specific takedown requests that they know they can win, as opposed to taking down more gray-area things like source code.
Grabbing an emulator from dolphin-emu.org or GitHub is not the same thing as grabbing an emulator from a well-moderated public storefront where a good number of your third-party partners also publish their games.
Nintendo does not publish their games on Steam as of right now, but for an analogy, imagine how happy Sony would be if a PS4 emulator showed up on Steam recommended right next to their other PC games.
This was always playing with fire.
[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/nintendo-sends-valve-dmca-notice-to-...
Doesn't the DMCA's interoperability exception cover this?
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3)The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3)The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
Aside from that, there's also the problem that a DMCA notice as defined in 17 U.S.C. §512 is a procedure for handling copyright infringement. Nintendo is apparently alleging a violation of 17 U.S.C. §1201, which defines a separate class of offense that is not the same thing as copyright infringement. So what Nintendo sent probably isn't a proper DMCA notice, but rather a cease-and-desist letter that pretends to be a DMCA notice or has been misinterpreted by the target and the press as being a DMCA notice because it mentions the DMCA (albeit a different part of the DMCA).
[deleted]
>Because Nintendo's legal department is not dumb and makes very specific takedown requests that they know they can win, as opposed to taking down more gray-area things like source code.
But you couldn't even grab the emulator from Steam! There is zero indication that the Steam version of emulator would even include those keys (it's trivial to make the user to type them in/point to a file with them). So DMCA is a total bs and typical example of the abuse that is never punished in our legal system.
It's like copyright striking a channel with the announcement that they'll be streaming a parody of Morbius with the reason that it contains copyright material (perhaps some previous parody included shots from the trailer), without actually seeing the final product.
But you couldn't even grab the emulator from Steam! There is zero indication that the Steam version of emulator would even include those keys (it's trivial to make the user to type them in/point to a file with them). So DMCA is a total bs and typical example of the abuse that is never punished in our legal system.
It's like copyright striking a channel with the announcement that they'll be streaming a parody of Morbius with the reason that it contains copyright material (perhaps some previous parody included shots from the trailer), without actually seeing the final product.
> imagine how happy Sony would be if a PS4 emulator showed up on Steam recommended right next to their other PC games
You don't have to imagine, Bleem! was sold in boxes in game stores. Sadly, Sony lost that battle and emulators were deemed legal.
You don't have to imagine, Bleem! was sold in boxes in game stores. Sadly, Sony lost that battle and emulators were deemed legal.
[deleted]
you can extract that exact key from a real Wii using a pair of tweezers
> If they're Nintendo's keys, why would they DMCA a Steam page but not a GitHub repository that's distributing the keys?
I don't know
> If they're Nintendo's keys, why would they DMCA a Steam page but not a GitHub repository that's distributing the keys?
I don't know
So remove it and have people copy it in when they set up Dolphin. You can find the keys easily and you can get them for your own wii.
Yeah it feels like republishing with the keys removed will mean this DMCA request is moot
Encryption keys are not an expression, they are more like technological utility. I don’t think they are copyrighted. The DMCA could apply because of the anti-circumvention rules but that’s also kind of doubtful because emulation is fair use.
Nevertheless making an emulator for a current console so easily available so anyone can pirate games on release day is unfair to Nintendo and it should surprise no one that they would act.
Nevertheless making an emulator for a current console so easily available so anyone can pirate games on release day is unfair to Nintendo and it should surprise no one that they would act.
Fair use is irrelevant to the anti-circumvention provisions (at least unless the Library of Congress explicitly sets out an exception, and they have not for emulation), and the statement that encryption is fair use is significantly more ambiguous than people hope it is (for a start neither of the relevant cases were heard in a high enough court to establish a significant precedent).
Maybe you're right, but it seems very strange that a series of bits, that is, data, not code, is a circumvention device.
Additionally, it does look like there are carveouts... The anti-circumvention methods need to "effectively control access", which, seems to me as a non lawyer, that if it's very easily broken that's not very effective. (Does DVD CSS still count for this?) The device needs to have no other purpose (homebrew anyone?). There are carveouts for reverse engineering in order to make a compatible product.
Anyway, IANAL, but ... it seems to me like this interpretation can be challenged in court? Does anyone know of examples of it being upheld? There was that prosecution of that Bowser guy, I'm guessing he took a plea deal.
Additionally, it does look like there are carveouts... The anti-circumvention methods need to "effectively control access", which, seems to me as a non lawyer, that if it's very easily broken that's not very effective. (Does DVD CSS still count for this?) The device needs to have no other purpose (homebrew anyone?). There are carveouts for reverse engineering in order to make a compatible product.
Anyway, IANAL, but ... it seems to me like this interpretation can be challenged in court? Does anyone know of examples of it being upheld? There was that prosecution of that Bowser guy, I'm guessing he took a plea deal.
The "effectively" means that it has the effect of, not whether it does it poorly.
Are these keys even necessary for emulating games with Dolphin?
In theory you can dump disk images pre-decrypted, but that would make the Steam version of the emulator incompatible with every disk dump tool and personal Wii game archive out there.
Plus, for preservation's sake, there at least needs to be some attention paid to 1:1 media dumps, as closely as possible.
Maybe we should just let the Streisand Effect take care of it.
I still have the infamous 09 F9 11... stuck in my head as a result of that.
I still have the infamous 09 F9 11... stuck in my head as a result of that.
Now you can also memorize 0xebe42a225e8593e448d9c5457381aaf7
The DMCA basically exists to support Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's anti-consumer and anti-competitive business models. Jailbreaking is "legal" for anything that isn't a game console, under the logic that users don't have a good reason to do it besides piracy.
Which is of course complete fucking bullshit, especially since it means that an alternative store can never exist without being violating the DMCA.
I hope that the push towards an alternate app store on iOS also brings more attention to this issue.
(btw, idk if anything I just mentioned above is relevant to the Dolphin situation)
Which is of course complete fucking bullshit, especially since it means that an alternative store can never exist without being violating the DMCA.
I hope that the push towards an alternate app store on iOS also brings more attention to this issue.
(btw, idk if anything I just mentioned above is relevant to the Dolphin situation)
> Which is of course complete fucking bullshit, especially since it means that an alternative store can never exist without being violating the DMCA.
I doubt it'll happen, but it would be pretty funny for someone in the EU to try to apply the Digital Markets Act on Nintendo to force them to open the Switch to alternative app stores as revenge for all of these anti-emulation cases. Instead of losing no money at all on people playing 15 year old games, they'd be forced to compete with alternative stores or leave a lucrative market entirely (which would mean everyone would just emulate their crap).
For that to happen, they'll need to sell 12 million more Switches inside the EU, stay a gatekeeper for three years, and after that they'll have to piss off some rich person pretty badly, but I can see it happen.
I doubt it'll happen, but it would be pretty funny for someone in the EU to try to apply the Digital Markets Act on Nintendo to force them to open the Switch to alternative app stores as revenge for all of these anti-emulation cases. Instead of losing no money at all on people playing 15 year old games, they'd be forced to compete with alternative stores or leave a lucrative market entirely (which would mean everyone would just emulate their crap).
For that to happen, they'll need to sell 12 million more Switches inside the EU, stay a gatekeeper for three years, and after that they'll have to piss off some rich person pretty badly, but I can see it happen.
You forgot Elsevier and Apple.
i'm generally of the opinion that the DMCA is an overreach and a bad law, but this seems like exactly the sort of thing it was meant to address. in what way is this an abuse of it?
It is Nintendo after all
So we just have to use that feature that lets you add non-Steam apps to Steam.
What is the real impact of this? Seems like it'll reduce exposure to the extremely rare Steam user who doesn't know emulators exist and/or how to install them outside of Steam
What is the real impact of this? Seems like it'll reduce exposure to the extremely rare Steam user who doesn't know emulators exist and/or how to install them outside of Steam
Mostly relevant to Steam Deck users; a proper Steam release would offer better system integration, Steam Cloud, Steam Input, etc. as I understand it.
After you add it to the library, it shows up just like a normal steam game, but yeah some things are missing (for example Steam Cloud is missing, but Steam Input works fine)
Hasn't emulation been tried in court many times? I guess corporations will never stop trying to push their luck.
It has. But this is not about emulation, this is about dolphin shipping encryption keys. https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a...
Weird, I'd think that all ROMs would he pre-decrypted by whoever dumped them.
Last week when there was a comment on a dolphin thread that went on about "oh why don't they contribute solely to MESS", I said the following...
> Probably a combination of NIH syndrome, not knowing other projects exist, and not putting all your eggs in one basket (especially because Nintendo is quite litigious when it comes to emulators)
That post was flagged, and nobody ever told me why. Now it seems quite obvious why it was flagged.
> Probably a combination of NIH syndrome, not knowing other projects exist, and not putting all your eggs in one basket (especially because Nintendo is quite litigious when it comes to emulators)
That post was flagged, and nobody ever told me why. Now it seems quite obvious why it was flagged.
Because the first two points are, at best, insulting/flamebait without any substance to back them up. What good is hypothesizing stuff like the two crowning jewel open source emulation projects haven't become well aware of each other over the last 20 years as one of three main reasons they are separate today? The third point being good and valid rarely makes up for that kind of conversation here, in terms of a comment doing well. Sorry I participated in that without leaving a reason, it's not always obvious people want to be further explained why.
I'm sorry but how is that flamebait? In the early 00s not everyone knew of every minute detail in the emulation scene, and honestly, they still don't. It's still to this day a very underground scene.
To be completely honest, most people just want a way to play free games... but even going back to nesticle in the late 90s it was about preservation and gaining personal knowledge of the hardware we enjoyed so much growing up.
Having been in touch with several emulator developers over the years, there is also quite a lot of infighting over who's code is the best, or whether they even want outside contributions at all.
I don't feel my comment was incorrect at all.
To be completely honest, most people just want a way to play free games... but even going back to nesticle in the late 90s it was about preservation and gaining personal knowledge of the hardware we enjoyed so much growing up.
Having been in touch with several emulator developers over the years, there is also quite a lot of infighting over who's code is the best, or whether they even want outside contributions at all.
I don't feel my comment was incorrect at all.
Something like "In years past, many emulation projects were more niche and development done as part of a scene rather than collaboratively. Maybe that early history played into Dolphin starting out separate and then never having a good opportunity to merge its already developed codebass with MAME/MESS?" might come off less aggressively as well as focus the discussion around substance, if it were to be the original comment. Hopefully you can agree that it's a lot easier for meaningful conversation to form around that while, on the other hand, it's a lot easier for an emotionally charged conversation to form around a statement starting "Probably a combination of NIH syndrome, not knowing other projects exist,". Both statements might have genuinely seeked to make the same intended argument, but had completely different approaches are what make it interpreted as insults/flamebait vs well intended conversation, not the personally perceived factuality. Similarly, past experiences (second or third party) with other developers who had infighting problems is not an excuse to argue that's the problem with other developers you don't know while expecting it to be interpreted as well-intentioned, without a particularly deep explanation. Those kind of claims leave little in the way of content to respond to and invokes only emotional responses, which is precisely what flagging is for.
It wouldn't necessarily make it any more true as to why Dolphin is merged with MAME/MESS currently though. Dolphin has been an extremely collaborative open source effort over the years and went through multiple rewrites with hundreds of developers who were well aware of MAME/MESS (as well as other projects like retroarch these days) and still kept it standalone. What it would, however do, is be a well received comment and open the floor to earnest responses which could earnestly talk about those thoughts with more direct knowledge of the project. The other comments did a good job of covering technical reasons this kind of merger wouldn't really make sense, so I'm not going to duplicate that conversation here, but the comment being put next to them likely amplified that it seemed like a particularly unfounded take of the Dolphin team.
None of this is to say any of us here are perfect, me very often not, but just because you are asking why it was flagged so heavily and nobody else gave any explanation.
Even if you disagree with every last bit of the above though, please keep in mind many long time members of the Dolphin development community are active here on HN and they probably don't feel great reading comments from people they've never interacted with assuming these kinds of things (e.g. infighting, guarded about contributions, unaware of other popular projects, motivated by NIH as a primary reason) about them.
It wouldn't necessarily make it any more true as to why Dolphin is merged with MAME/MESS currently though. Dolphin has been an extremely collaborative open source effort over the years and went through multiple rewrites with hundreds of developers who were well aware of MAME/MESS (as well as other projects like retroarch these days) and still kept it standalone. What it would, however do, is be a well received comment and open the floor to earnest responses which could earnestly talk about those thoughts with more direct knowledge of the project. The other comments did a good job of covering technical reasons this kind of merger wouldn't really make sense, so I'm not going to duplicate that conversation here, but the comment being put next to them likely amplified that it seemed like a particularly unfounded take of the Dolphin team.
None of this is to say any of us here are perfect, me very often not, but just because you are asking why it was flagged so heavily and nobody else gave any explanation.
Even if you disagree with every last bit of the above though, please keep in mind many long time members of the Dolphin development community are active here on HN and they probably don't feel great reading comments from people they've never interacted with assuming these kinds of things (e.g. infighting, guarded about contributions, unaware of other popular projects, motivated by NIH as a primary reason) about them.
Maybe you should have just said something instead of kneejerking the flag button then. This whole conversation wouldn't have needed to take place.
I would have been happier to have had the record set straight (from the GC perspective) last week than having to repeat my earlier opinion of my personal experiences with the NES/GB/SNES communities.
I would have been happier to have had the record set straight (from the GC perspective) last week than having to repeat my earlier opinion of my personal experiences with the NES/GB/SNES communities.
The comment was already "dead" (hidden by default for low score) by the time I saw it (I have the "showdead" setting enabled, which enables users to see and second-chance review dead comments in case they think they might be "vouch" worthy) and it's generally not advisable to interact with the content that caused a thread to be flagged/dead here, beyond
the second-chance reviewing. As a note, it takes many flags and downs combined with a lack of vouches and ups for a comment to reach and stay in flagged+dead status. Well, that or a moderator action, but you'll usually get a comment and/or email from them in that case.
In general though, what you say is true - the community guideline is to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation you can come up with and engage with that rather than downvote/flag, if you can. I've found sometimes, if my comment was deaded as being particular poor taste or flagged out as blatantly against guidelines, I might not get any responses as to "why" since many consider it obvious or have a hard time coming up with a constructive way to respond. Sometimes they are right, I look back as simply having woken up on the wrong side of the bed with the problems being truly obvious the next day. Other times, to counter this occasional lack of feedback when it isn't obvious to me, I take to editing (or self-replying if the edit window is closed) a genuine note like "My comment is being taken poorly, could someone take the time to explain why as I didn't mean it to?" often gets genuine responses. You seem to have found that out on your own as well, albeit here in a separate thread, and that's why I apologized for not realizing you were looking for feedback.
In general though, what you say is true - the community guideline is to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation you can come up with and engage with that rather than downvote/flag, if you can. I've found sometimes, if my comment was deaded as being particular poor taste or flagged out as blatantly against guidelines, I might not get any responses as to "why" since many consider it obvious or have a hard time coming up with a constructive way to respond. Sometimes they are right, I look back as simply having woken up on the wrong side of the bed with the problems being truly obvious the next day. Other times, to counter this occasional lack of feedback when it isn't obvious to me, I take to editing (or self-replying if the edit window is closed) a genuine note like "My comment is being taken poorly, could someone take the time to explain why as I didn't mean it to?" often gets genuine responses. You seem to have found that out on your own as well, albeit here in a separate thread, and that's why I apologized for not realizing you were looking for feedback.
given that dolphin is open source, a company could be created just to litigate the issue. That is, to upload dolphin on steam. without the original team permission, and to contest the DMCA claim.
If they'd have grounds or not, I don't know, but the liability could be limited to them, so, there is not much to lose (if, say, the EFF is interested in the case)
If they'd have grounds or not, I don't know, but the liability could be limited to them, so, there is not much to lose (if, say, the EFF is interested in the case)
What were they thinking. Nintendo allowing an emulator on steam??
Good video on this from MVG - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsQtv5IvrD8
tl;dr The Dolphin source code contains a common/private key owned by Nintendo, which is their reason for asking it to be pulled from the Steam store.
tl;dr The Dolphin source code contains a common/private key owned by Nintendo, which is their reason for asking it to be pulled from the Steam store.
I still find it weird that a key can be illegal. It’s not a work someone has created, like a boot ROM. It’s just a random number that happens to be the random number they used.
I guess it’s more to do with copy protection circumvention than copyright?
I guess it’s more to do with copy protection circumvention than copyright?
For sure, as mentioned in the video it's an 'Illegal Number' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
What did they think was going to happen?
They release the software they created on steam, same as any other indie developer. Its not like they are distributing roms or making emulators is illegal.
Is their debian PPA also offline?
Was dolphin planning on selling on steam?
Nitendo being nintendo then
But but stealing is the coolest crime of all. Software wants to be free?
This is one of the few times I sympathize with Nintendo's piracy issues. They're a competing platform/console, why wouldn't they stop this?
It's not a question about whether Nintendo wants to stop it, but whether US copyright law gives them the power to stop it. It might; but it also seems quite possible that Nintendo would prevail merely through intimidation rather than by having the law soundly on their side.
> piracy
It's an emulator for consoles (wii and gamecube) and games that you cannot buy from Nintendo
It's an emulator for consoles (wii and gamecube) and games that you cannot buy from Nintendo
You’re saying that Nintendo should be able to take things down for… competing with them?
[deleted]
I hope that the "settled" here means until the Dolphin team's legal counsel sends a DMCA counter notice. Then Nintendo can sue or drop the issue. But if they sue, the Doplhin project can stay on Steam until a judge orders differently or until they lose the trial. That's how it's supposed to work. Valve should stay absolutely hands off and neutral on this! This is not piracy and emulators are important.