Nintendo issues CnD to tournament organizers for using "project slippi" an emulation mod allowing a 20 yr old game to be played online

[Donut417]

26 minutes ago, Crossbred said:

But it's more like taking something off someone's front lawn with the word "FREE" taped in front, and then getting sued for trespassing. The only "illegal" thing the TOs were going to do is stream it. It's common sense not to meddle too deeply in that stuff as a company because it gets hate and is rarely worth the money. Precedent can be set by court cases from other companies. It's just a power move.

Last I checked Nintendo wasn't giving its property away for free. Its their legal property to do with as they please. If they want to lock it up in a vault for years and years they have that legal right. Just because you dont like the law doesn't mean you can just take peoples stuff. The LAW is the LAW. Copyright protections are pretty much guaranteed by the US constitution, the same way the right to privacy, the right to a trial, the right to freedom of speech, etc is protected. Deal with it. 

[Crossbred]

45 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Last I checked Nintendo wasn't giving its property away for free. Its their legal property to do with as they please. If they want to lock it up in a vault for years and years they have that legal right. Just because you dont like the law doesn't mean you can just take peoples stuff. The LAW is the LAW. Copyright protections are pretty much guaranteed by the US constitution, the same way the right to privacy, the right to a trial, the right to freedom of speech, etc is protected. Deal with it. 

Bro chill. I'm not saying they don't have copyright. They do. But people are legally allowed to make ROMs and run emulators. Nintendo can only make a legal move because they don't have express permission to stream, which they then don't have the legal right to do. What I'm saying is that, regardless of what Nintendo wants, if someone legally makes and uses a ROM it's none of Nintendo's business, but streaming footage of it or a conventionally used game with a console are both illegal without Nintendo's permission. But Microsoft doesn't sue a little kid up his butt for monetizing a Minecraft let's-play video. Sony doesn't care about sharing footage of the new Spider Man game. It's just Nintendo. 

 

Defending a company on the grounds that they can do something is not always agreeable. Like how the law says that Amazon can pay dimes in taxes every year. 

[Trik'Stari]

My problem is that they don't utilize their IP to the extent they should.

 

Give me a Legend of Zelda, with a Skyrim level of depth and size or bigger, on PC, and I'd throw money at it. I'd pre-order it. In 4k 60hz? Hell yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhpzaViVdKQ

 

Tell me you wouldn't throw $100 at that. I would.

 

I just want game companies to try harder. Some things they've created have brought me to tears, I miss story driven gaming.

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Give me a Legend of Zelda, with a Skyrim level of depth and size or bigger,

just give me skyrim with the visuals (inc animations) of BotW.

 

BotWs map is larger than Skyrim, but yeah skyrim has SOOOO much more to do.

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

just give me skyrim with the visuals (inc animations) of BotW.

 

BotWs map is larger than Skyrim, but yeah skyrim has SOOOO much more to do.

Outdo both of them.

[Silentprototipe]

The lesson about Nintendo is always this. They are dicks about their IP but are fully within their rights to do this. Shame they use the law to skrew people over like this 

[Morris_lee_9116]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

My problem is that they don't utilize their IP to the extent they should.

 

Give me a Legend of Zelda, with a Skyrim level of depth and size or bigger, on PC, and I'd throw money at it. I'd pre-order it. In 4k 60hz? Hell yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhpzaViVdKQ

 

Tell me you wouldn't throw $100 at that. I would.

 

I just want game companies to try harder. Some things they've created have brought me to tears, I miss story driven gaming.

oh look we got another one of these person who think that look good
here's a song about you

 

[staticpage]

Was just about to get a new switch and cart live, not anymore. I vote with my wallet

[JoeCoke]

22 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It is a baseless number...but so is the claim that what the organizers did was legal.

 

What the TOs did was completely legal, it's so clear that you have no clue what is going on here. Do at least two minutes of research before you make yourself look foolish please.

[JoeCoke]

3 hours ago, staticpage said:

Was just about to get a new switch and cart live, not anymore. I vote with my wallet

You could always buy a Switch used on ebay, that way you get to enjoy the Switch and Nintendo gets not a cent. 

[JoeCoke]

14 hours ago, huilun02 said:

This is not about legality or rights...

 

People who love Nintendo games had an event that also celebrates Nintendo and put the brand in good light. They mustered what was needed to keep it going amidst the pandemic.

 

And Nintendo gave them the finger...

 

Something is seriously wrong with people who consider themselves part of that band, and yet defend Nintendo's decisions.

Right??? Even if Slippi was illegal (it's 100% legal), all it does is bring Nintendo fans together during a pandemic to play a game Nintendo hasn't sold and ignored for over a decade. Nintendo has NOTHING to lose here. Whoever sides with Nintendo on this gives no shit about consumer freedom and loves the taste of boots.

[Crossbred]

21 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

My problem is that they don't utilize their IP to the extent they should.

 

Give me a Legend of Zelda, with a Skyrim level of depth and size or bigger, on PC, and I'd throw money at it. I'd pre-order it. In 4k 60hz? Hell yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhpzaViVdKQ

 

Tell me you wouldn't throw $100 at that. I would.

 

I just want game companies to try harder. Some things they've created have brought me to tears, I miss story driven gaming. 

Isn't it strange? They lose money on their consoles and recoup with games, but they would just be better on pc and they would lose less money.

Guess it's just the "Nintendo experience".

[wanderingfool2]

On 11/21/2020 at 12:01 PM, 2Buck said:

What the TOs did was completely legal, it's so clear that you have no clue what is going on here. Do at least two minutes of research before you make yourself look foolish please.

And you are basing this on what?  Emulators are legal, but the use of ROM's is still not proven to be legal.  I am tired of people who mindlessly spout out that ROM's are completely legal.  If you did more than a few minutes of googling, you would find that there aren't any case-laws, and while it is speculated that it might be legal...a lot of people seem to glom onto the concept of "fair use" or the DRM exemptions without understanding the concept that what you can use those for have limitations.  Maybe if you did a bit of research yourself, you would realize that they are not 100% in the clear.

 

Remember, Nintendo also was likely privy to more information than what the public is seeing as well (as they were sponsoring the event originally).  At no time did Big House actually come out and say what they were doing was legal...in fact at least Nintendo's statement claims it was illegal (which again, could very well be true...as again ROM's haven't been tested in court and even if ROM's for backup purposes were legal, requiring the use in a tournament could potentially push it back into the illegal category).  e.g. Do you know whether or not Big House had any communications whether a ROM was going to be distributed (to ensure no one was cheating).

[krakkpott]

Nintendo's anti-consumer behaviour never got any backlash, that's why they keep doing it.

[Eaglerino]

3 hours ago, krakkpott said:

Nintendo's anti-consumer behaviour never got any backlash, that's why they keep doing it.

lol what they get backlash all the time, but people seem to have a problem with Nintendo protecting their very valuable, very old intellectual property. If you had a game series filled with characters as famous and worth the money as Nintendo does, you'd be hiring lawyers to stomp out any theft, no matter how small, just the same as Nintendo. The fact remains this is a third party mod made without permission of any kind for a game Nintendo still fully owns all rights to. They have ever last legal right to do this, and it's not their problem a bunch of people want to play a 20 year old offline-only game. Nintendo's also immune to the outcry of the angry Twitter army, which is a little refreshing from all the companies that buckle from one complaint (Ubisoft....)

 

Nintendo's best option would be to bring Melee to the Switch somehow, but let's be real that's not going to happen

[Trik'Stari]

Edit: Forgot I already chimed in, please delete.

[Delicieuxz]

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you are basing this on what?  Emulators are legal, but the use of ROM's is still not proven to be legal.

Using a ROM to play a game you own but otherwise can't access is an example of bypassing DRM in order to secure usage of your video game when there isn't a better option available - which is legal.

 

If Big House could ensure that those using ROMs in their tournament all owned legal copies of the game, a ROM-based tournament in light of the covid-19 situation should be perfectly legal.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Using a ROM to play a game you own but otherwise can't access is an example of bypassing DRM in order to secure usage of your video game when there isn't a better option available - which is legal.

 

If Big House could ensure that those using ROMs in their tournament all owned legal copies of the game, a ROM-based tournament in light of the covid-19 situation should be perfectly legal.

This is my point though, it's not really proven in courts.  People keep saying it's legal, but in actuality it might not be.

 

DMCA sets up the right to break DRM in specific circumstances, but it also is just a tack onto the copyright system.  You could probably successfully argue that people are allowed to bypass DRM to create a ROM for the purposes of a backup.  The issue is, using the ROM isn't really defined in the fair use doctrine.  i.e. Using a ROM for an ease of use might not be legal.  Actually, it could be argued that by playing the ROM's could cause harm to the value of the copyright, thus diminishing the value of a future release it [which would make it no longer fall into the final category of fair use] (I know the standard arguments of it's causing publicity, but that's not up to the consumer to decide).

 

Could read this

https://legalbeagle.com/12719016-copyright-law-making-personal-copies.html

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

 

tl;dr: Making a pure backup is legal, using the ROM for ease of use might not be.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

This is my point though, it's not really proven in courts.  People keep saying it's legal, but in actuality it might not be.

 

DMCA sets up the right to break DRM in specific circumstances, but it also is just a tack onto the copyright system.  You could probably successfully argue that people are allowed to bypass DRM to create a ROM for the purposes of a backup.  The issue is, using the ROM isn't really defined in the fair use doctrine.  i.e. Using a ROM for an ease of use might not be legal.  Actually, it could be argued that by playing the ROM's could cause harm to the value of the copyright, thus diminishing the value of a future release it [which would make it no longer fall into the final category of fair use] (I know the standard arguments of it's causing publicity, but that's not up to the consumer to decide).

 

Could read this

https://legalbeagle.com/12719016-copyright-law-making-personal-copies.html

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

 

tl;dr: Making a pure backup is legal, using the ROM for ease of use might not be.

I would say that the onus lies with those seeking to argue the opposite.

 

What's established in law is that people are entitled to bypass DRM when doing so is necessary to secure usage of their video game, software, movie, music, book, etc.

 

Using a ROM to play a game sounds like it's fully within the concept and under the umbrella of bypassing DRM to secure the usage of an owned video game when better alternatives aren't available.

 

I think that when a ruling is made, exercising the entitlement granted by the ruling isn't contingent on each conceptual aspect of the ruling being first further ruled-on before the entitlement is secured - such a situation would mean that a ruling can never be safely exercised because someone can always bring-up a contextual detail to a specific situation and claim it obstructs the ruling from being of any force. The ruling grants the entitlement it states, and any exceptions to it are what need to be argued separately.

 

If someone thought that there needs to be an exception from the right to bypass DRM carved-out regarding ROMs, then they would have to make a case as to why that would be.

 

If there's a city ordinance that says it's lawful to drive 50 km/h on certain roads, then it doesn't need to be legally tested whether it's lawful to drive 50 km/h on those road while in a Toyota, vs a Honda, vs a Chevy vehicle. The rule is simply that people may drive 50 km/h on those roads. And in the case of bypassing DRM, the rule in the US is that people are allowed to bypass DRM in order to accomplish usage of video games and software (and other things) which they legally own when there isn't available a better alternative to use that property of theirs.

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Could read this

https://legalbeagle.com/12719016-copyright-law-making-personal-copies.html

 

"However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met."

 

The Library of Congress rulings have already moved things beyond the idea that is just "may be permitted", and have affirmed that people are permitted to make archive copies of their digital goods.

[Heliian]

I'm not going to blame Nintendo for covering their butts. 

 

The reason for their cnd is due to the large scale organization and the profits being made off of their IP, simple.  

 

The tournament organizers should have known better.

[Bitter]

On 11/20/2020 at 5:18 AM, Lord Vile said:

It’s their IP, maybe they should just play the new smash. The one that doesn’t require illegal practices to use. 

If you a record on Vinyl and record to a digital file to listen on your phone because the original was never on anything than vinyl, should that also be illegal?

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

Bypassing DRM doesn't exempt issues with copyright.  The DMCA actually is written in a way that bypassing DRM (in a way that doesn't meet the requirements) is still a violation, even if the work itself wasn't copyrighted.  My point was, DRM and it's exception has very little to do with this potentially (well to an extent, if Slippi breaks DRM of the gamecube in any way one can argue that even though it isn't copyright they broke a DRM which wouldn't actually fall under the exceptions...as it's adding functionality rather than archiving).

 

Either way, it is the copyright part that wasn't tested in courts.  Backing up media is one thing, but using the backed up material is another.  Using a ROM for the purposes of emulation might not fall under it being constituted as a "backup".  To that same article, here are two sentences that were from the beginning part of the article

Quote

However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met. Creating a copy of a copyrighted work for your own ease of use is likely to be considered copyright infringement.

The sentence after the one you quoted.  Creating a ROM to play on the emulator to be able to play multiplayer in multiple locations could be considered an "ease of use" (it doesn't matter if Covid is the reason they are doing it)

 

4 hours ago, Bitter said:

If you a record on Vinyl and record to a digital file to listen on your phone because the original was never on anything than vinyl, should that also be illegal?

Should it be, no...is it, maybe.

[Kisai]

13 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

This is my point though, it's not really proven in courts.  People keep saying it's legal, but in actuality it might not be.

 

It's against Twitch's ToS to play pirated games. End point. There is physically no way to do the thing without everyone playing the same rom image, hence they are required to be playing a pirated copy of the game.

 

This is the same issue with playing modified game consoles like the NES/SNES mini. Because these devices are software emulators and can be modified to play other games, only someone who is really savvy about what is on those devices, and also a dick, would report those streams.

 

Otherwise it's up to Nintendo to review things using their IP and see if they want to turn the other cheek about it.

 

Slippi is a custom version of the Dolphin emulator for netplay. I can guarantee you, 0% people playing it are using legally obtained disc images. Because there are zero legal disc images, Nintendo hasn't authorized any. You also can't tell me people legitimately know how to backup their discs because the drives that can do it haven't been sold in a decade, and the other method requires modifying the console.

 

Now, there is a way, albeit complicated, to do netplay with the physical consoles, but it's not straight forward. You instead emulate the controllers. That requires people to make things, or for the Wii, communicate with the Wii via directly via bluetooth. I don't see anyone that enthusiastic about spending money on doing this, hence we return back to "clearly it must be piracy driving this"

 

Anyway.

 

If Nintendo doesn't want to create the experience that people desire, people will just do it in places they can't reach. I could really not care if people emulate the console with pirated games if they're not also profiting off it, but it's absolutely insane that people think they're entitled to do it.

[Technous285]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Slippi is a custom version of the Dolphin emulator for netplay. I can guarantee you, 0% people playing it are using legally obtained disc images. Because there are zero legal disc images, Nintendo hasn't authorized any. You also can't tell me people legitimately know how to backup their discs because the drives that can do it haven't been sold in a decade, and the other method requires modifying the console.

Just because Nintendo doesn't provide ISO's and other dumps of games on their system, doesn't make it illegal for someone who owns original media to say "fuck you" and make their own dump of their copy of original media.

Additionally whilst Nintendo doesn't like it, they can't do jack squat legally about people modifying their consoles beyond refusing to do warranty repairs on them as First Sale Doctrine strips away any control that Nintendo might have had on the systems once they are purchased by the consumer (which is why companies like Ford can't force you to buy tyres from a Ford dealer, or use Ford petrol, use only Ford-made spares (as if there's anything truly made by them and them alone in spares outside of niche items anyway)...), plus the systems we're talking about being modified are well outside most normal warranty windows of 5-10 years.

And even then, the whole "Warranty Void if removed/modified" dealio with stickers and such has no legal bearing anyway, never really did have much of a legal leg to stand on and has only been beaten in to the ground by the rise of Right To Repair laws in the US, and by guaranteed warranties enforced by laws in countries such as Australia where you have a legal minimum warranty and anything past that is optionally provided by the retailer or manufacturer who will shoulder the burden of repair-or-replacement depending how flawed the product was and if it was even fit for purpose at time of sale.

 

The US has loopholes in DMCA to let people who own original media "protected" by DRM to crack the DRM to make a personal-use backup copy of original media.

Australian Consumer Law outright says "you own a piece of media; it doesn't matter what DRM is used to 'protect' it, you're within your rights to break the DRM and make a copy of the media to use regularly whilst you store the original media away to preserve it. However if you transfer away ownership of the original media you must hand over the backup copy or otherwise destroy it.", which covers ALL forms of Audio-Visual media from things like 45RPM records, to compact cassette, 8-track, Laser Disc, VHS, Betamax, CDs, DVDs, BDs, and all forms of video game carts and discs.

 

That means, no matter how much Nintendo wants to bitch, whine and moan about it; I as an Australian can go online and buy & import something to dump something as old as a NES/Famicom cart or as new as a DS or Switch cart, and I'm protected by law to use that device to make the dump, play the dump in emulator or on a flashcart, and put the original media away in its box for collection purposes as long as I do NOT share the dump.

And guess what? I've actually had to procure a DS cart dumping USB device to make copies of my DS-era Pokemon games so I could load them on to a flashcart that I kept in my DSi whilst my original carts were stored away safely at home, before the carts started to fail.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Technous285 said:

Just because Nintendo doesn't provide ISO's and other dumps of games on their system, doesn't make it illegal for someone who owns original media to say "fuck you" and make their own dump of their copy of original media.

 

 

It doesn't matter. As long as Nintendo does not provide a legitimate way to download the game images, there is no way to legitimize software emulators of Nintendo's hardware. 

 

Fair use and intentional loopholes about creating backups only apply to the US. Japan's copyright system is different from the US, where there is no concept of fair use, and a lot of stuff that Americans would cry foul over doesn't fly over there, and vice versa. Parody/satire culture in Japan is very very different from the US. In a sense, both countries say you can use certain aspects of the material, but neither permit you to wholesale copy something. 

 

The exception for backups in US law is a consequence of the unreliability of the medium, tapes and floppy disks. This is a unreliability that persists to all optical media, mechanical drives and flash drives. There is no way to make a reliable, permanent version of a software product, and thus "backup" devices that can only play copies made on themselves is the only way this fits the narrative. None of those devices, past or present behave that way, only Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft's consoles behave like that, as a form of DRM. You can install the game to the hard drive and if the hard drive dies, you reload the game from the disc. No need for a backup copy. If you bought it digitally, theoretically you could redownload your purchases. In practice only Steam and iTunes/App store actually does that. 

 

Anyway, stream with an emulator, you risk getting banned by the streaming service, and C&D'd by the game publisher. That's a non-negotiable fact. As this tournament decided to try this to work around the Covid 19 problem and not to implicitly capitalize on piracy, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. 

 

It however doesn't change the fact that Nintendo has a pretty terrible track record with both supporting old games and services required to support them. If Nintendo doesn't want people to do this with pirated games and unauthorized emulators, then they should release the game in a cross-play manner that includes the PS4/XboxOne/PC/Mac. Like look no further than the difference between playing Tetris 99 and Super Mario Bros 35, which is console exclusive, versus playing Dr Mario World on the phone.

 

Super Mario 35 has an expiry date. Why. It certainly can't cost them very much to host the servers to run it.