Comment

Comment on Nintendo Confirms Backwards Compatibility for Switch Successor!

john117@lemmy.jmsquared.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

as a major fan of classic video game emulation, I understand the conversation surrounding game preservation… but I draw the line at emulation of current gen games that are still actively being sold with hardware that you’re still easily able to purchase.

I can understand why nintendo may want to destroy and threaten anything that hosts software through unauthorized channels as well, as the biggest source of their income is gaming hardware and software. anything that threatens their main source of income will have the book thrown at them, wouldnt you do the same?

Check this quote out. if you were running a business, do you not see where they are coming from? I feel like their hands are tied:

You Can Lose Your IP Rights if Not Enforced If you don’t take adequate or sufficient, reasonable means to protect and enforce your IP, then you run the risk of losing your IP rights. What is sufficient and reasonable action is not always clear; it depends on the situation. But, suffice it to say, if you know someone is using your IP without your authorization, you should promptly look into it to determine what, if anything, should and needs to be done so that you don’t lose one of your most important business assets – your valuable intellectual property.

varnumlaw.com/…/enforce-your-intellectual-propert….

source

Sort:hotnew top

MagnyusG@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
what you’re against is piracy.

piracy of current gen games is what you’re against. As a consumer I should have the right to purchase a game (software) and do whatever the fuck I want with it, if I want to emulate Tears of the Kingdom because it runs and looks better on my computer than on my switch I should be allowed to do so. I purchased the console and the game, they’ve received my business, they should no longer have a say with what I do with my stuff.

Nintendo themselves use emulators for their products, there is nothing inherently wrong with emulation.

source
- john117@lemmy.jmsquared.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  As a consumer I should have the right to purchase a game (software) and do whatever the fuck I want with it, if I want to emulate Tears of the Kingdom because it runs and looks better on my computer than on my switch I should be allowed to do so
  
  you should, but you dont. you fail to realize nintendo games are licensed to us. You do not own any software you puchase through nintendo. Take a look at the last two sections of this page:
  
  Can I Download a ROM If I Own the Original Game? No, downloading ROMs from direct download sites, linking sites or other illegal sources, even when you own a copy of the video game, is not allowable under the Copyright Act.
  
  But can’t I make a backup copy if I own the video game? You may be thinking of the backup/archival exception under the U.S. Copyright Act. There is some misinformation on the Internet regarding this backup/archival exception. This is a very narrow limitation that extends to computer software. Video games are comprised of numerous types of copyrighted works and should not be categorized as software only. Therefore, provisions that pertain to backup copies would not apply to copyrighted video game works and specifically ROM downloads, that are typically unauthorized and infringing.
  
  so no, you cant just run it on whatever you want to, legally speaking. I think you should be able to do whatever you want with software, but its never been this way.
  
  source
  - molotov@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    This statement is misleading and a lie. Computer software encompass video games as part of the legal definition outlined in Galoob v. Nintendo in 1992, which Nintendo lost in court. They do not have legal leg to stand on if someone wants to make an archival copy of a game they own physically. The terms backup and archival are not interchangeable legally and Nintendo intentionally uses misleading language when answering the question.
    
    Image
    
    source
    john117@lemmy.jmsquared.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Since we are going to take a deep dive on this, I attempted to read a Wikipedia article on this court case. I stopped reading after the second sentence since the top of the wikipedia article does not support your claim, at all.
    
    from wiki:
    
    The court determined that Galoob’s Game Genie did not violate Nintendo’s exclusive right to make derivative works of their games, because the Game Genie did not create a new permanent work.
    
    the game genie did not create a new copy of a video game, an important distinction. what is a ROM if its not a new, permanent file and what does this court case have to do with my previous statement?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments