Why Are Emulators Legal? Dolphin vs. Nintendo, and the Fate of Emulation [Great Emu War Pt. 1]
Moon Channel2 HN recommenders · 2023–2024
410K views · explainer · dated · Uploaded 2023-07-14
Moon Channel, run by a lawyer, explains the legal basis for emulation, including the history of emulation case law and Nintendo's takedown of Dolphin's Steam release. It argues the legality of emulators is more fragile than most people assume.
HN points to it as a clear, lawyer-made summary during Nintendo emulator disputes like Yuzu.
1:25:348 Bit & '8 Bitish' Graphics-Outside the Box
GDC Festival of Gaming
22:21Reverse emulating the NES to give it SUPER POWERS!
suckerpinch
3:36elevated by Rgba & TBC | 4k intro (FullHD 1080p demoscene demo)
Demoscene High-Quality Videos (Annikras)
46:39Don't Talk to the Police
Regent University School of Law
42:29YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.
Tom Scott
7:22Antonin Scalia - On American Exceptionalism
AmericanRhetoric.com
1:01:07The Ultimate Game Boy Talk (33c3)
media.ccc.de
1:02:38The Cardboard Box Reform - Nixon's Ghost Bill & A Crucial Flaw in Democracy
CRI
3 comments from Hacker News
It varies based on country and jurisdiction, but from an American / European perspective - some parts of the emulation scene are “definitely not legal” (eg, distributing copyrighted ROMs), and most parts of the scene are “It is complicated. Well-informed people have different predictions, but it hasn’t been tested in court, so we don’t know for sure”. Moon Channel (an actual lawyer) has a fairly clear and concise summary with particular relation to the Dolphin emulator’s attempt to get itself on Steam: [VIDEO]
I really recommend folks watch this, from a lawyer: [VIDEO] “Why Are Emulators Legal? Dolphin vs. Nintendo, and the Fate of Dolphin Emulator”
In order to isolate one part of the software as "the bad bits", you need either clear specific language in the law or a clearly established relevant legal precedent. Neither of these things currently exist in the context of DMCA 1201. If you're curious, here's the most relevant parts of the text: > No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;[...] > As used in this subsection—[...]a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. FYI: I am not a lawyer, but you can listen to a lawyer explain the above at the following link [VIDEO]