552
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
552 points (99.5% liked)
Nintendo
18297 readers
123 users here now
A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.
Rules:
- No NSFW content.
- No hate speech or personal attacks.
- No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
- No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
- No console wars or PC elitism.
- Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
- All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here
Upcoming First Party Games (NA):
Game | Date
|
The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom | Sep 26 Super Mario Party Jamboree | Oct 17 Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025
Other Gaming Communities
- Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Games @ sh.itjust.works
- World of JRPG's @ lemmy.zip
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.world
- Patient Gamer @ lemmy.ml
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wouldn't call it a clear violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201, but it was a plausible one. I do agree that they would have been blasted for legal fees trying to figure that part out, however.
Nintendo had a leg to stand on, but it was highly dependent on whether the judge would find an emulator's primary purpose to be DRM prevention. A good judge that does research into the subject likely wouldn't find it to be the case, since the primary purpose is emulation and decrypting game titles is only a small part of that. Ending up with a luddite or corporate shill judge is always a huge risk, though.
Japanese IP law IIRC, not american.
They sued under the DMCA, though?