• zarkanian
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You have to use prod.keys, don’t you? There shouldn’t be anything illegal about using prod.keys as long as you don’t distribute the file.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Decrypting the ROM ahead of time and requiring that to be used would be the safe alternative.

      It would require a separate tool to do that first, but decoupling the steps would prevent Nintendo from going after the much-harder-to-develop emulator using the argument they used here. If they kill the decryption tool, another one pops up.

      • TheChargedCreeper864@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know if this would ‘satisfy’ them (I know it wouldn’t, I’m referring strictly to the legal stuff). From what I’ve heard, the point Nintendo was making wrt the encryption is that aquiring prod.keys in any way, shape or form is illegal. Of course, creating an emulator for a system that only runs games that contain encryption which can only be undone with prod.keys requires the developers to have this file. Since they’ve successfully made an emulator, this implies that the Yuzu team has in fact obtained a copy of this file and done something naughty.

        The problem is that, regardless of whether or not the decryption happens in Yuzu or in another completely separate program, modern Nintendo games do not come unencrypted. This means that someone at some point has to decrypt the files, and thus has to use prod.keys to do so. According to Nintendo, using and creating any emulator for a modern system requires someone to do something illegal at one point in the chain, and therefore emulation (by parties not explicitly authorized by Nintendo) cannot legally exist.

        I say that Nintendo should piss off after I’ve bought something from them and that I should be allowed to do with my property as I please, but even the most legally and morally correct way to emulate is not okay with them.

        This raises the following question: if Nintendo does not respect in the slightest our property rights by pulling such stunts, why should we as end users respect their intellectual property rights? Why go through all the effort of clean room reverse engineering a console instead of blatantly copying as much of the official code base as possible if the legal system punishes you all the same? Why limit yourself to only emulating games you personally ripped from your own cartridges if the act of ripping has already placed your actions into the “illegal” category?

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          The emulator itself doesn’t necessarily have to exist only to run retail games. It could be used to develop or debug homebrew and marketed as such. They wouldn’t even need to have decrypted the operating system to understand it, as Atmosphère is a complete reimplementation untainted by Nintendo code.

          If it ran retail games as a consequence of being accurate to real hardware, that would just be a happy accident. And as long as the developers don’t acknowledge running retail games and don’t directly assist in fixing them, they have plausible deniability.

          This raises the following question: if Nintendo does not respect in the slightest our property rights by pulling such stunts, why should we as end users respect their intellectual property rights?

          I’m a big fan of the “buy a game and crack it right after” philosophy. Respect property rights until something is in one’s legitimate possession, and then remove any encumbrances preventing it from being used in the way the purchaser wanted.