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

[Lord Vile]

Just now, DeScruff said:

You realize Melee is pre online play right? So... No they can't just play on Gamecubes over the internet.

Anyways emulators are not illegal. Distributing the BIOS, or games - oh heck yeah that is illegal. This is the problem most emulators have when it comes to Disc based consoles.

Nintendo can't legally do anything if you made an NES game that 100% works on original hardware, then developed an NES emulator that just plays that game, and distribute that game+emulator on Steam or whatever.
Nintendo don't give a shit though, they honestly go after anything it seems like. Meanwhile you have companies like Sega who seemingly embrace the community or at least turn a blind eye to it, yet never seem to have trouble maintaining the rights to Sonic or whatever.

Did you miss the entire pandemic thing in the post? 

[JoeCoke]

Did NOT expect to see this covered on this site, nice. Yup, Nintendo is fucking dogshit.

 

Facts:
Slippi contains no Nintendo code or reference to any of their intellectual property.

 

Project slippi is code injection, not directly modifying the original game code.

 

Emulation is 100% legal and has been proven in court.

 

ROM ownership in itself is not illegal, piracy is.

 

Nintendo has done nothing but stand in the way of the Smash community (not just Melee).

 

Nintendo doesn't have the rights to shut down Slippi. They do however have the rights to shut down any stream containing their IP (because of our dogshit 1700s copyright system). Most companies do not do this however as it's free marketing... Most successful games these days rely on it, Minecraft anyone?

 

Slippi rollback netcode gave us Melee players a way to play the game with little to no lag during a global pandemic when we cannot gather at local events.

 

Other companies embrace modding and community stuff, except Nintendo because they're ridiculously out of touch.

 

Arc System literally hired fans when they made a rollback netcode patch for Guilty Gear. Sega has done similar stuff. Again, most other companies embrace this stuff as it's healthy for any popular game.

 

Unrelated, Nintendo has also been shutting down content creators/streamers of streaming Age of Calamity. Even more dogshit.

 

I could go on for hours. #FreeMelee

 

EDIT:

Bonus fact: You can 100% legally play Slippi online. You can rip your own ISO using your Wii (backing up your own games is legal), and the emulator used for netplay is also completely legal. Sure, there are people who will pirate, but emulation and piracy are not the same thing. My Brawl and Melee ISOs were created using my own discs with my own Wii.

 

https://kotaku.com/nintendo-shuts-down-smash-tournament-over-some-absurd-b-1845719656

 

Anyways, have some sick Melee combos
 

 

And thank you OP for covering this!

[JoeCoke]

13 hours ago, 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. 

Oh yeah, play the new game with 5 second input delay online. Great idea. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that all Smash Ultimate pro players are basically doing nothing right now because of covid, the online is so bad that it's almost unplayable. Hell, when Melee rollback came out, most ult players were playing Melee because they can't play ult.

[wanderingfool2]

Before people keep posting about Nintendo, please read the article.  Particularly this quote regarding the statement.

Quote

"Unfortunately, the upcoming Big House tournament announced plans to host an online tournament for Super Smash Bros. Melee that requires use of illegally copied versions of the game," their statement read

 

 

2 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

ROM ownership in itself is not illegal, piracy is.

Read the quote I just posted.  While Slippi is likely not in legal trouble, their statement literally says "requires use of illegally copied version of the game"

 

  

28 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

They weren't by the sounds of it just bypassing DRM though.  While bypassing DRM -might- be arguable as allowable in this case, the distribution is likely not.  Also, DRM bypassing might not be a thing, in that it's "to fulfill the purpose of the use."  The game wasn't intended as online, so circumventing technology to allow online play could invalidate it (not saying I agree with the DMCA)

[JoeCoke]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

read the quote I just posted.  While Slippi is likely not in legal trouble, their statement literally says "requires use of illegally copied version of the game"

Except backing up your own games is not illegal, and nobody is forcing you to use an illegally obtained ISO of the game.

 

Read:

Quote

it should be noted that backing up your own copies of video games for personal use is entirely legal per United States copyright law.)

 

source: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

 

 

I don't care what Nintendo "literally says", they're lying and they're full of shit.

[JZStudios]

7 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

They would lose in a court case, but they can make it expensive. Right now they can get away with it because the cases have never gotten close enough to trial to make it a real risk. The important precedent, in the US Legal System, is Roy Orbison v. 2 Live Crew. We're eventually going to get something similar for video games, but it'll be a while. Until then, legal departments can be abusive because the cost of fighting is always too high.

Yeah, I don't think Nintendo has a leg on this. The only reason the guy has to bow down is because Nintendo has money. He's not pirating it, just making it capable of online play. People did the same thing with MGO in MGS3 on modded PS2s. Emulators are legal, people own the games, they're just playing online. Nintendo just being assholes again.

[JoeCoke]

7 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

They would lose in a court case, but they can make it expensive. Right now they can get away with it because the cases have never gotten close enough to trial to make it a real risk. The important precedent, in the US Legal System, is Roy Orbison v. 2 Live Crew. We're eventually going to get something similar for video games, but it'll be a while. Until then, legal departments can be abusive because the cost of fighting is always too high.

It's the sad reality of how the legal system works. You don't have to be in the legal right to make someone hurt, you just have to have more money than them. Tearing down the little man is all too easy for big corporations, even if they have no leg to stand on.

[Delicieuxz]

57 minutes ago, Kid.Lazer said:

They aren't bypassing anything. They are adding features that didn't exist before to play the game the way THEY want to. That is not even close to the same thing. Not being permitted to play in-person by government authorities does not justify hacking a game to perform whatever functions you desire.

No, that isn't Nintendo's complaint against them. Nintendo has targeted their aim to use pirated copies of the game.

 

Modding a game or software that you own is perfectly legal. So, yes, they are justified to mod their own game copies to have any functions they want them to have.

[wanderingfool2]

51 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Except backing up your own games is not illegal, and nobody is forcing you to use an illegally obtained ISO of the game.

Except, if you are promoting an event and are requiring people to use a specific rom (which wouldn't be making a backup of your own game) then it would be copyright infringement.  It's not about the legality of creating a ROM, it's the legality of whether the event organizers create a scenario where a copyrighted rom would be used (ie. needing to be distributed)

[JoeCoke]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except, if you are promoting an event and are requiring people to use a specific rom (which wouldn't be making a backup of your own game) then it would be copyright infringement.  It's not about the legality of creating a ROM, it's the legality of whether the event organizers create a scenario where a copyrighted rom would be used (ie. needing to be distributed)

Except nobody needs to illegally obtain their image of the game. Saying the events should be closed because some people will enter with pirated copies is like saying stores should be closed because some people will shoplift. Nobody is required to use a "specific rom", I don't know where you're getting this information from.

 

And like I've said, Nintendo does have the right to cancel any event that features their IP, but this has NOTHING to do with piracy or emulation issues which is what they say they're after and besides, legal =/= moral.

 

As far as the legality of Slippi and playing Melee online via emulation, it's all legal.

[JoeCoke]

[wanderingfool2]

16 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Except nobody needs to illegally obtain their image of the game. Saying the events should be closed because some people will enter with pirated copies is like saying stores should be closed because some people will shoplift. Nobody is required to use a "specific rom", I don't know where you're getting this information from.

If someone hosts an event and knows that 99.9% of the participants will be using a non-backuped up version of the game, then the event does get into a bit of an issue.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Just because Nintendo can, doesn't mean they should. I don't understand why EA get so much hate for pulling this stuff, but nintendo will get defended relentlessly for doing the same stuff. Nintendo is an awful anti-consumer company.

Because it’s the LAW. You kick in so poor bastards door and make off with his stuff, don’t you go to jail? That essentially what piracy is. It’s Nintendo’s property. If they don’t issues DMCA on stuff then when they try to protect themselves in court, they would have weakened their position. 

[suits]

We just need to remember Nintendo isn't a bunch of good guys, they just like to try and make people think they are.

[JoeCoke]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If someone hosts an event and knows that 99.9% of the participants will be using a non-backuped up version of the game, then the event does get into a bit of an issue.

And where does this 99.9% figure come from? Are you prepared to back yourself up with proof or a source of any kind? Anything to show you're not just pulling numbers out of nowhere?

I guarantee the vast majority of anyone entering these events owns at least one copy of this game. I've owned it myself several times, got my first copy in 2004. Do I have direct proof of this? No, but you don't either. But as someone who's actually in the community, everyone I know has at least one copy, most have several because at local events you are incentivized to bring in setups for people to play on. Point is, you have 0 proof of this 99.9% claim, it's empty at best.

[JoeCoke]

8 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Because it’s the LAW. You kick in so poor bastards door and make off with his stuff, don’t you go to jail? That essentially what piracy is. It’s Nintendo’s property. If they don’t issues DMCA on stuff then when they try to protect themselves in court, they would have weakened their position. 

Piracy is not the issue here. Nintendo bringing piracy into this is a strawman tactic to make Slippi look like the boogeyman. Slippi, events and streams are not piracy.

[poochyena]

12 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Because it’s the LAW. You kick in so poor bastards door and make off with his stuff, don’t you go to jail?

Please learn the difference between civil vs criminal law.............

[Lord Vile]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

You're blurring the lines between copyright and trademark.  Trademarks you need to actively try preventing people from using it...copyright not really.  If they allow older games, but pursue just the newer ones they don't really lose much legal authority or even make their case more difficult.  Trademark infringement, people are allowed to point to other examples though and use it to build a case to weak a trademark.

 

In regards to the topic, I totally understand why Nintendo would drop out and stop sponsoring it (and wouldn't blame them for doing so).  The C&D letter is really bad though, and really dislike the usage like that...with that said the organizer's were a bit stupid.  They are using illegally copied games...at the very least they should have required participants to own the copy (and then just do a rom patch)...it would have at least put them on a ground where a C&D might not have been possible.  [And if the contestants so happened to get their copies on the modified patched rom without owning it...well that wouldn't be on the organizers and no one would have known]

Considering smash is both copyrighted and trademarked I don’t see the issue 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, 2Buck said:

And where does this 99.9% figure come from? Are you prepared to back yourself up with proof or a source of any kind? Anything to show you're not just pulling numbers out of nowhere?

I guarantee the vast majority of anyone entering these events owns at least one copy of this game. I've owned it myself several times, got my first copy in 2004. Do I have direct proof of this? No, but you don't either. But as someone who's actually in the community, everyone I know has at least one copy, most have several because at local events you are incentivized to bring in setups for people to play on. Point is, you have 0 proof of this 99.9% claim, it's empty at best.

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

 

As a note as well, there is no case law regarding ROM usage.  Until someone takes it throughout court, it is still just speculation.  Ontop of that, the distinction between owning a game and backing it up is quite different than owning a game and downloading it.  Owning a game doesn't grant you the right to download a rom.  It might grant you the right to make a backup of it (yourself), but it doesn't necessarily grant you the right to then play said game on an emulator (vs a console).  Until someone actually takes it through the courts no one would know either.

 

Again, having a copy of a game doesn't protect you from downloading a ROM.  Let me put it this way.  Of your emulated games, did you rip all of them yourself?  Look at how many N64 speed runs there are on N64 emulators; and yet I can bet that most runners didn't spend the money to dump their carts.

[Master Delta Chief]

7 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

I don’t care what Nintendo release, they have to defend their IP or it weakens their ability to do so when it matters. Ultimately this makes sense.

No it doesn't, only in the 'legal' sense. The laws itself surrounding IP is broken as it mostly benefits corporations like Nintendo and creates situations like these that are just unnecessary. Just because there's a particular law, doesn't mean it's a good one. There's no reason to defend Nintendo here at all.   

[CarlBar]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

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

 

Not really. If you've watched youtube or twitch of people who stream retro games they'll all show off roms occasionally, and any that play modded versions, (most speedrunners use modded versions for practise for example), thereof routinely they all have hardware for injecting code when playing on native hardware. I'm not sure about hardware for extracting the ROM's as much, (some absolutely do, but it's less talked about and sown off), but it wouldn't be unreasonable in the slightest given everything else.

 

You see thats the difference here your claim is a made up number, there's no evidence behind it. @2Buck can likely point to youtube, twitch, or social media for many of the individuals in question to show that yes, they do have the ROM's. There's actual evidence on the matter if someone cares to look into it.

 

For that matter in the case of a legal challenge this can actually be checked.

[pzspah]

Idk if anyone already said it, but Nintendo has to do this.

 

If they even let one case like this slip it can be used against them when litigating larger fish for similar issues.

 

Being able to mod or use software in new ways isn't a right, protecting your IP is.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Please learn the difference between civil vs criminal law.............

Piracy is technically a criminal act. At least in the US. Most copy right holders choose the civil action because frankly they want the money. Plus the government has better things to do. 

[Crossbred]

11 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The copyright protection extends to the life of the creator PLUS 70 years. Nintendo is with in its LEGAL right. 

 

The fact is, if Nintendo doesn't protect their IP and allows projects like this, it erodes their ability to protect their IP in the future. Because essentially they set a precedent allowing people to use their IP without permission. Also, just because they are not making money off a particular game doesn't mean they cant in the future. They offer quite a few NES and SNES titles on the Nintendo Online service. So who's to say they wont be remaking any of their older titles and releasing them in the future? 

 

The only legal way they can stop the stream is because they don't have express permission from Nintendo to stream footage of their IP. They're just insane for actually enforcing it. Who's going to buy a rebranded copy of a dead fighting game? In a genre where newer almost always means better, they won't sell a single copy of a remade Melee if they kill it now. Because Ultimate is a better game. But if they keep Melee alive and release a remake for current hardware and current multiplayer functionality, it can sell. 

 

TLDR: You're right about the first part. But they're just sinking money and pr into a pit that will never return anything.

[Crossbred]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Because it’s the LAW. You kick in so poor bastards door and make off with his stuff, don’t you go to jail? That essentially what piracy is. It’s Nintendo’s property. If they don’t issues DMCA on stuff then when they try to protect themselves in court, they would have weakened their position. 

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.