this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
429 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59323 readers
5276 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grangle1@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The previous times these types of issues have actually gone to court (Nintendo v. Tengen back in the '80s and Sony v. Bleem in the '90s) pretty much all ended in the same way: the emulator/bypass maker won the suit, but the copyright holder drowned them in so many legal costs they had to fold anyway. And these were larger companies with much more resources than any indie emulator dev can muster.

EDIT: also, it should be noted that Tengen and Bleem were able to win their cases specifically because their chip/software were complete reverse engineers and did not contain any Nintendo/Sony proprietary code. It's not to say that if an emulator like Yuzu that requires a cryptographic key from an actual console were to go to court that they wouldn't still win as long as that key is not provided, but it does give the console maker more leverage, and without a lot of resources, indie emulator devs would likely not want to take the chance.