410K views · Jul 14, 2023 · 42:42 · 2 HN recommenders · 3 mentions · discussed 2023–2024
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.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN points to it as a clear, lawyer-made summary during Nintendo emulator disputes like Yuzu.
“I really recommend folks watch this, from a lawyer”HN comment, 2024
“I really recommend folks watch this, from a lawyer”
Lawyer explains why emulators are legal.
I really recommend folks watch this, from a lawyer: this video “Why Are Emulators Legal? Dolphin vs. Nintendo, and the Fate of Dolphin Emulator”
“Moon Channel (an actual lawyer) has a fairly clear and concise summary”
Lawyer's clear summary of emulator legality, especially Dolphin on Steam.
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: this video
“you can listen to a lawyer explain the above at the following link”
Lawyer explains DMCA 1201 text.
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 this video
