Higher Quality
https://rpghq.org/forums/
It would seem so.
That has already been remedied with previous cases, they have no standing.WhiteShark wrote: ↑ February 27th, 2024, 23:05"Nintendo Switch games, which Nintendo authorizes for play solely on Nintendo Switch consoles,"
>you are only allowed to use our products exactly as we prescribe
The implications of that are absurd. Total nonsense. I hope the court sentences Nintendo to death.
Technically, no.. but lets be honest, with the shit show going on in the legal system concerning a lot of political cases where they are blatantly (judge and prosecutor) ignoring the law, would it be a surprise of some how they magically got a ruling defying all legal means that sides with them?Vergil wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 00:45As long as they aren't distributing Nintendo's intellectual property themselves there's nothing that can really be done to them right? People hosting the games can easily be DMCA'd but this is just a program to run the games and even requires you to dump certain files from an actual switch or download them somewhere, but not from Yuzu themselves to work right? Not attracted to children so I don't have much experience with Nintendo stuff honestly.
AFAIK Because they have to agree to a contract to not reverse engineer the game to play it, which they violated. WoW can't be reverse engineered without actually connecting to the game servers.Shillitron wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:03Although, to play devil's advocate.. it amazes me that Blizzard can sue bot creators .. when their source is all originally written and just automates playing a game.. they aren't doing anything a player can't do.. how is that lawsuit worthy?
Are TOS admissible in court for lawsuits like that?rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:05AFAIK Because they have to agree to a contract to not reverse engineer the game to play it, which they violated. WoW can't be reverse engineered without actually connecting to the game servers.Shillitron wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:03Although, to play devil's advocate.. it amazes me that Blizzard can sue bot creators .. when their source is all originally written and just automates playing a game.. they aren't doing anything a player can't do.. how is that lawsuit worthy?
Here's the motion for default judgment filed by blizzard, which was granted:Shillitron wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:07Are TOS admissible in court for lawsuits like that?rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:05AFAIK Because they have to agree to a contract to not reverse engineer the game to play it, which they violated. WoW can't be reverse engineered without actually connecting to the game servers.Shillitron wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:03Although, to play devil's advocate.. it amazes me that Blizzard can sue bot creators .. when their source is all originally written and just automates playing a game.. they aren't doing anything a player can't do.. how is that lawsuit worthy?
I thought a TOS is only a legal contract that allows Blizzard to revoke your use of their system without you having any legal recourse to hit back at them for denial of service of a product you paid for.
With regards to my prior post:The Bossland Hacks have no commercially significant purpose or use
other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to
copyrighted work and that protects the exclusive rights of a copyright owner.
Compl., ¶ 54; MDY Indus., 629 F.3d at 953 (software bot had no purpose other
than to facilitate the playing of an online computer game).
Bossland markets the Bossland Hacks with knowledge of their use to
circumvent Blizzard’s technological access controls and copyright protection.
Compl., ¶ 55.
● As a result of the foregoing, Bossland is offering to the public,
providing, or otherwise trafficking in technology in violation of 17 U.S.C.
§ 1201(a)(2).
Amusingly related to the mods HQ hosts which some people (falsely) believe are not derivative works:Copyright Infringement. As the owner of the copyright in the Blizzard
Games (Compl., ¶ 9), Blizzard possesses the exclusive rights to, among other
things, reproduce the Blizzard Games, distribute the Blizzard Games, and create
derivative works of (i.e., adapt) the Blizzard Games. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (2), (3).
Blizzard has sufficiently alleged that the creation, distribution, and use of the
Bossland Hacks infringes Blizzard’s copyright in a number of ways, and that
Bossland is secondarily liable for each of those acts of infringement under theories
of inducement to infringe copyrights, contributory infringement, and vicarious
infringement.
First, in order to create, improve, test, and maintain the Bossland Hacks,
Bossland employees (or freelance hackers retained by Bossland) fraudulently
obtained access to Blizzard’s software clients for each of the Blizzard Games.
Compl., ¶¶ 41-43. Once in possession of Blizzard’s copyrighted software code for
the Blizzard Games, Bossland or those acting on its behalf engaged in acts of
unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, and/or distribution of Blizzard’s games as
part of the process by which they created and/or maintained the Bossland Hacks.
For example, to build the Bossland Hacks, individuals working on behalf of
Bossland loaded the Blizzard Games onto their personal computers and then used
third party software to either obtain Blizzard’s source code or to obtain and analyze
data that would be necessary for the creation of the Bossland Hacks. See MAI Sys.
Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993) (unauthorized
copies of software in RAM memory constituted unauthorized reproductions under
the Copyright Act).
So much as changing a single piece — a word, a line of code, a brush stroke — creatives a derivative work.Second, when users download, install, and use the Bossland Hacks they
infringe Blizzard’s copyright by altering the Blizzard Games’ gameplay and
presentation, thereby creating a derivative work of the video game. For example,
Overwatch Tyrant generates a dynamic screen overlay which it then incorporates
into Overwatch’s screen display. See Compl., ¶ ¶ 32-37; 65; 71; 77; Midway Mfg.
Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009, 1013-14 (7th Cir. 1983); Micro Star v.
Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1998).
I should point out that Blizzard never saw a penny of the money they sued for.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:05AFAIK Because they have to agree to a contract to not reverse engineer the game to play it, which they violated. WoW can't be reverse engineered without actually connecting to the game servers.Shillitron wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:03Although, to play devil's advocate.. it amazes me that Blizzard can sue bot creators .. when their source is all originally written and just automates playing a game.. they aren't doing anything a player can't do.. how is that lawsuit worthy?
Yes, but didn't John Deer lose this exact case on the same grounds of farmers altering their software because the main difference between some of the models was simply that? They tried to argue the code was theirs, and the farmer had no right to modify that code of a tractor they owned on the very private property they kept. I could be wrong, but I thought the case didn't win.Nammu Archag wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:17It's within Nintendo's terms not to mess with their proprietary software/hardware, which is pretty standard in tech. Team Yuzu would have had to mess with it to bypass security measures when creating the emulator. And it's likely they did this illegally as well since Nintendo definitely didn't give them the keys necessary. I am pretty sure Nintendo has existing precedents on their side as well like the Gary Bowser case who now owes Nintendo millions for selling switches with modified software.
no, afaik ik that was over the right to repair as John Deer consumers couldn't get adequate repairs for vital equipment without violating john deer clauses. That's a bit different and is also a big deal when it could hamper global food supply. They already bought the equipment in accordance with laws and the terms of the company, but the company JD was unable to deliver adequate service. Meanwhile, yuzu allows you to get a modified Nintendo product entirely through a 3rd party without ever touching a switch. That's obviously based because fuck Nintendo, but is legally stupid for someone making money off of it in RI.Xenich wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:47Yes, but didn't John Deer lose this exact case on the same grounds of farmers altering their software because the main difference between some of the models was simply that? They tried to argue the code was theirs, and the farmer had no right to modify that code of a tractor they owned on the very private property they kept. I could be wrong, but I thought the case didn't win.Nammu Archag wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:17It's within Nintendo's terms not to mess with their proprietary software/hardware, which is pretty standard in tech. Team Yuzu would have had to mess with it to bypass security measures when creating the emulator. And it's likely they did this illegally as well since Nintendo definitely didn't give them the keys necessary. I am pretty sure Nintendo has existing precedents on their side as well like the Gary Bowser case who now owes Nintendo millions for selling switches with modified software.
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.Nammu Archag wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 02:00no, afaik ik that was over the right to repair as John Deer consumers couldn't get adequate repairs for vital equipment without violating john deer clauses. That's a bit different and is also a big deal when it could hamper global food supply. They already bought the equipment in accordance with laws and the terms of the company, but the company JD was unable to deliver adequate service. Meanwhile, yuzu allows you to get a modified Nintendo product entirely through a 3rd party without ever touching a switch. That's obviously based because fuck Nintendo, but is legally stupid for someone making money off of it in RI.Xenich wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:47Yes, but didn't John Deer lose this exact case on the same grounds of farmers altering their software because the main difference between some of the models was simply that? They tried to argue the code was theirs, and the farmer had no right to modify that code of a tractor they owned on the very private property they kept. I could be wrong, but I thought the case didn't win.Nammu Archag wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 01:17It's within Nintendo's terms not to mess with their proprietary software/hardware, which is pretty standard in tech. Team Yuzu would have had to mess with it to bypass security measures when creating the emulator. And it's likely they did this illegally as well since Nintendo definitely didn't give them the keys necessary. I am pretty sure Nintendo has existing precedents on their side as well like the Gary Bowser case who now owes Nintendo millions for selling switches with modified software.
It's expected from a jap company, they have some of the most retarded views on IP.KnightoftheWind wrote: ↑ February 29th, 2024, 04:45Instead of seeing the over-reliance on emulation as a business/service problem, they only see it as a violation of their copyright. Disregarding the fact that "IP", or "intellectual property", is mostly gake and fay and everyone knows it, Nintendo's executives need to take a good hard look at customer feedback and really take it into account. Maybe the reason people like emulating their games so much, is because A: It's Free, and B: the games play and look better through emulation. Who in their right mind would pay $60+ for a game that runs at 720p/30 on real hardware, if they have the means to emulate it and get a much better experience?. Nintendo fans were probably abused more than any other this generation. Full-price Wii U ports, broken controllers that require constant maintenance and/or replacement, paid online that doesn't even compare to Xbox Live 1.0, and a sharp decline in the quality of output post-2017. Xbox and PlayStation are so benign and irrelevant in recent years I don't even think they have any fans, so they don't count.
Any good business would see this as an opportunity for further growth and investment. Nintendo should be porting their backlog to PC, and giving the customer what they want- to play Nintendo games on the hardware they prefer.
