• pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re not bogus. The emulator that shut down were selling a product using a proprietary encryption key owned by Nintendo.

      That’s why Dolphin still exists.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I disagree. Sure, companies have a moral right to recoup their R&D costs on a console, but I fully reject the Divine Right of Shareholders. As long as the emulators aren’t sold for profit and no one is hurt, a multibillion dollar company like Nintendo has zero moral ground to tell us that we cannot emulate consoles that we have bought to play games that we also bought.

      • catsup@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Proprietary encryption key

        What if the key was in a book? It would have to be protected by free-speech, which makes it uncensorable.

        What if the key contents were used as hex values to make a flag? Would you censor a flag too?

        No such thing as “proprietary encryption keys” exist.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The key wasn’t used in a book or in the hex values for a flag. That’s like saying the formula for Coke can’t be proprietary because it could be put in a book.

          Software can absolutely be proprietary, and that key is part of the software.

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Fuck that and proprietary recipes too. It’s just a scheme to manufacture scarcity and grant everlasting monopolies on production.

            Both things should be in the public domain by now, the concept of century plus term copyright is a grift to own culture, they’re just going to keep extending it until companies can have permanent ownership of ideas.

      • denshi@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        IANAL, but from a EU-centric perspective on copyright (which is the only one I can reliably talk about) the idea of a proprietary encryption key is bogus. A creative work can be copyrighted if it has sufficient originality (or under some other very specific conditions). Smaller parts of such a work are not copyrighted if they don’t meet that criteria on their own. The encryption key (which is very probably randomly generated and definitely not a creative work) thus can’t be copyrighted on it’s own. At least in the EU, there should be no argument against sharing said key (at least in respect to copyright).

        I honestly can’t talk about other jurisdictions (maybe someone else here can) but I imagine it should be similar to this in many other countries.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Sharing isn’t the issue. The emulator was profiting from it.

          If I copied your house key and sold it, would that be alright?

          For the record, I support emulation, but I don’t lie to myself that it’s morally defensible.