[minimaxir]

Many Nintendo games (including Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) have been decompiled and have not been attacked by the Nintendo Ninjas: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot

The more pressing legal concern here is the use of game assets, which these decompilations work around by requiring the user to provide a ROM to extract them first.

[vore]

I don't think that's a real legal defense. Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets (why wouldn't it be? it's just another kind of game asset), and the whole extracting assets thing making decompilations free from copyright infringement that gets bandied about is complete armchair lawyering. It's only by Nintendo's good graces these are still allowed to be hosted on GitHub.

[pjerem]

> Code is just as subject to copyright as game assets

The decompiled code is not the code that Nintendo wrote. This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.

[AshamedCaptain]

Why is it always the same on every thread of this type? Perhaps I can grab the code segments of a Windows ISO, apply a series of mechanical transformations, and proceed to call it Freedows and freely distribute it as my own? I am having trouble understanding the thought processes that lead to these conclusions. Too much ChatGPT?

By this logic copyright protection on software would be meaningless. The GPL would be meaningless. I could grab any program in the world, "translate it" to my favorite language-du-jour, and call it my own.. Goodbye viral license requirements...

[hoten]

These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly. It's just used as a rubric. The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's. That's the idea, at least. Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work.

Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Legality

[mjg59]

They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code. At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status. This code is then cleaned up such that it compiles and functions and variables are given sensible names. This is, arguably, a creative endeavour, but it's also clearly a derivative work of the original binary and so is still controlled by copyright law.

The decompilation itself may or may not be a copyright violation - that's likely to vary depending on jurisdiction. If someone in a jurisdiction where it's legal were to write a description of the behaviour of the decompiled code and if someone else were to implement a codebase that happened to compile to the same original binary code then there's an argument that no infringement occurred (a functional description of the behaviour of a work is potentially not derivative of that work, and re-implementing the code based on that description is then not constrained by the original copyright), but that's not what happened here.

I don't like that this is the case, but let's take it to a logical conclusion - if I take an interpreted language with a bytecode compiler, I can typically decompile it to something almost 100% identical to the original code (I'd lose comments and maybe variable names, but that depends on the language). Does this mean I can take copyrighted Python code, run it through the interpreter, dump the state, decompile it, and have an independent work not subject to the original license?

[matheusmoreira]

> They took the distributed game binary and ran it through a tool that produced an approximation of source code.

> At this point the decompiled code is clearly a mechanical transformation of the game binary, and so holds the same copyright status.

Courts disagree with you.

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727...

> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.

> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.

> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.

Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.

[AshamedCaptain]

> These decompilation projects are not using the distributed game binary to derive the code in their ports directly

That is the definition of decompilation. What are they using as input, if not the "distributed game binary"?

> The source code generated from this process is not Nintendo's.

This is just claiming the consequent. The output of my magical code transformation method is also not Microsoft's.

> Different from taking Windows ISO and jumbling it up into a rude goldberg machine and claiming it as a new work.

Yet that is exactly what decompilation is...

What distinction are you trying to make here? If I translate it to a different language, it is OK? That's as absurd as it gets and still basically strip all software from copyright.

> Do consumers agree to a end user agreement that specifies they cannot decompile the game?

For the record... yes.

[lrvick]

People will de-compile proprietary software and GPL it, and others will have AI clone/port GPL code to new languages then back to the original language again to de-GPL code.

Overall this will make software copyright laws pointless, but in the end everything anyone cares about will be open source. I am here for this outcome.

[AshamedCaptain]

Frankly I think you have a very rosy view. If this were to happen I foresee companies would immediately start treating code as if it was a private key, using ridiculous hardware protection mechanism, tivoization, SaaS, and the like as much as possible. The entire reason code is so accessible right now is because companies only care about making it "inconvenient" for home piracy, relying on the threat of legal action for everyone else. Imagine a world where if you don't do it then your competitors can legally use your software. Everyone who isn't already releasing their software under the BSD or PD would stop doing so since just about everyone else could just shamelessly rip it into their next closed as hell & secure boot'd device. Your "AI" would have zero source code to train on. Only the companies with the largest resources would be able to break the latest obfuscation mechanisms, leading to more effective imbalances in power. And on and on..

Mandating open software & open hardware is one thing, but simply removing copyright doesn't led there -- it leads to a even more dystopic world.

[lrvick]

Show me a popular hardware platform that users get to hold in their hands whose users have not dumped the firmware, or at least the firmware decryption key as with virtually every drm solution in history.

[qwery]

I'm not sure why. I think most threads of any type usually feel the same as other threads of the type. As for your Windows hypothetical, not sure which Windows you're talking about, but I don't think Microsoft would really care if you did the equivalent of the projects being discussed to Windowses of approximately that age. If you do something obviously different, like freely distribute a modified Windows ISO as your own, I would expect to encounter some resistance.

[AshamedCaptain]

> If you do something obviously different, like freely distribute a modified Windows ISO as your own, I would expect to encounter some resistance.

And this is exactly what this Github repository is doing.

If you are arguing "abandonware", then this is no legal argument whatsoever.

[bitwize]

> Freedows

Core memory unlocked: https://web.archive.org/web/20001109160100/http://www.freedo...

[matheusmoreira]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

> (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

The way the game works is not protected. Only Nintendo's code is.

[AshamedCaptain]

You are doing the same mistake as the other poster: claiming the consequent. I could also say that my magical transformation process produces code which is not Microsoft's, even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's. Why would your method be stripping copyright protection while mine wouldn't? What's the difference from what you are claiming?

Frankly at this point I just want to point out that if in your world view this is allowed, then _all_ software copyright is pointless, since anyone could apply the same rationale to any program in the world. What's the point of the GPL on such world?

[matheusmoreira]

> even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's

Fair use.

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727...

> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.

> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.

> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.

Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.

> then _all_ software copyright is pointless

It is pointless. I am a copyright abolitionist.

> What's the point of the GPL on such world?

None. The GPL was literally created in response to copyright protection being extended to software. No copyright, no point to the GPL.

[bri3d]

The decompiled code is a 1:1 translation, so it’s a derivative work. You can’t distribute a translated book without an agreement with the copyright owner, even if the translator contributed original creative work on top. The analogy is literally 1:1.

[ThatPlayer]

> This isn't the equivalent of steeling original code but more like generating a brand new code that would compile to the same executable.

That doesn't make it not copyright infringement. As long as it's based on the same executable, that's a derivative work. In the same way if I were to recreate Star Wars A New Hope with new actors and new sets. If I were to play a cover of Micheal Jackson's Thriller with new instruments and new voices.

That's why clean-room design is a thing. To recreate the same function not based off the copyrighted executable, but rather its interactions with the user, other programs, and files. Interactions that aren't copyrightable.

[qwery]

You could do a clean-room implementation[0] of Michael Jackson's Thriller and the rights holders could still take you to court and have a good shot at winning. You could have never heard Thriller, come up with an obvious[1] melodic phrasing that some lawyers reckon sounds close enough and still get sued.

Of course, none of that makes it copyright infringement, only the (would-be) judge does.

[0] The product of which is roughly equivalent to a cover

[1] obvious to a musician or composer

[vore]

If I took images from the game and converted them to WebPs then distributed them, that is still copyright infringement, even though those are not the images Nintendo created. Likewise, if you do the same with machine code to reconstructed code, that's the same in principle.

[bitwize]

It is, however, what is known in copyright as a "derived work", meaning that it is under the same copyright with the same owner as the original work.

It's Nintendo's code. Distributing it without permission is violating copyright.

[Salgat]

Is a translation of a book not also protected under the original copyright? This is just a human readable form of the original binary.

[chungy]

It's nearly trivial to get a file copy of the game disc if you own a Wii and the game. No copyright infringement needed to get the assets.

Even still, the reverse engineering part to put the executable code into C++ is definitely copyright infringement.

[jandrese]

Reverse engineering isn't copyright infringement. Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.

[ska]

> Distributing the reverse engineered source code is probably infringement however.

Probably not if it actually reverse engineered (with a firewall) but that's not what they are doing (i.e. decompilation isn't' reverse engineering)

[KaiserPro]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/50B

Says that its totally not legal to distribute decompiled code, or indeed:

> uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright.

If it was legal, there would be loads of decompiled binaries floating around for windows, Adobe, autodesk and any number of other expensive bits of software.

[EMIRELADERO]

Decompilation is an essential (although not mandatory for some cases) part of reverse-engineering.

As for decompilation projects that have only reconstructed source code and no game media assets, it's probably fair use.

[vore]

It is not fair use in itself: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyr...

  Decompiling object code produces an approximation of the original source code. Merely making this rough copy would usually violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights, even if the person who decompiled the code only used it as a preliminary step in making another work.

The only reason anyone believes this is fair use is because the copyright holders have chosen not to enforce it.

[ThatPlayer]

Decompilation might be fine, but distributing the results isn't a part of reverse-engineering.

Fair use is limited scope. One of the first criteria is use. Fair use is generally reserved for education, criticism, comment, and news. At best you could say this is education, but even then one of the other criteria for fair use is the amount of the work published. If you're teaching or criticizing this code, the whole codebase is probably too much. Some snippets would be fine like you would see in code reviews or reviews of books and such.

[ska]

It’s an often used tool, sure , but for legal protection of reverse engg, your implementation side is firewalled from all of that.

It's not likely to be fair use to distribute, fwiw.

[AshamedCaptain]

Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating, therefore you are copying (whether for your personal enjoyment or not) the works of the author without permission.

There are a series of well documented exceptions... normally found in copyright law. (And this most definitely does not fall into one of them).

[pama]

There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission. If I use my neurons to read and create an exact copy I can retell to myself, or I write it on pen and paper, or I type it on a personal computer, or I read it out loud, or read it out loud and record it for myself I don’t violate anything. Otherwise one would never be able to play copyrighted sheet music on a digital piano say. Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law.

[AshamedCaptain]

> There is no limitation in copying the work of an author for personal enjoyment without permission.

Actually there is in many jurisdictions of the world, including mine (France). There are some exceptions enshrined in copyright law, for which we actually pay a tax.

But this is besides the point. It's not even about the personal copies you make from your legally-obtained original copy on the first place. It's about where you obtained that initial copy from. Most definitely not legally from the author, if he is not authorizing RE.

> Reverse engineering might violate other agreements but not copyright law.

What other agreements does it violate? It is copyright law the only thing that puts a restriction between you and doing whatever the fsck you want with that code. There is a reason the RE exceptions are enshrined in copyright law...

[realusername]

> Reverse engineering without consent _is_ copyright infringement. As in order to obtain a copy of the software you likely signed an EULA which will likely have the standard anti-reverse engineering verbiage which you'll be violating

This reasoning is only valid in the US, this kind of anti reverse engineering clause has no value in the EU, reverse engineering is a predefined exception granted to copyright which cannot be voided.

[AshamedCaptain]

I mention in the original comment that there are several exceptions (in copyright law), but these are for specific purposes. However this is not one of them. If it was, you could literally apply the same reasoning to any piece of software in the planet.

[grishka]

You probably haven't signed anything if you bought the game on a physical medium.

[colechristensen]

There are fair use carveouts for reverse engineering code to, for example, make it usable on different platforms. I don’t believe this kind of decompile project has ever had its day in court and the laws are written in such a way that the outcome is at least somewhat likely to be skewed in favor of reverse engineering. Nintendo may be avoiding bringing suit because they don’t think they could win or that the judgement might make expanded rights explicit encouraging more of this kind of thing.

EFF on the topic https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq

[ThatPlayer]

Those fair use exceptions only cover the process of reverse engineering specifically. From that article: "Reverse engineers execute code and/or make copies of software as part of analyzing the way the program works."

But distributing the code is not part of the reverse engineering process, so that fair use doesn't apply. Also from that article:

> It is highly risky to copy any code into a program you create as a result of reverse engineering, because that copy could infringe copyright unless it is a fair use under copyright law.

[chungy]

It's even possible that Nintendo evaluates the harm of these projects to be rather lower compared to distributing the complete games themselves. Even though it's not based in any legal reality, the projects' firewall of "You must provide art assets from your own copy of the game" may suffice to keep the lawyers away.

I know, Nintendo will litigate anyone for any reason, but it is possible for a company to look away when these measures are taken.

[LegibleCrimson]

Yeah, seems most likely. In the past, they've explicitly taken down distributions of things like the SM64 PC port, but left the decompilation.

Companies don't have to C&D. If something poses very little financial danger, but taking it down presents significant risk of PR harm, it's not worth it. The C&D would cost more than it would save, so it makes no business sense.

Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular.

[chungy]

> Don't ask me why they even bothered taking down fan games, though. They seem to care a lot about art assets in particular.

If talking about AM2R, it posed a rather credible threat against the success of the official Metroid 2 remake (ignoring the fact that AM2R is of much higher quality anyway). Plus it contained ripped sprites from Zero Mission, Fusion, and incorporated all of the characters and enemies that Nintendo owns.

You can't just make your own Lord of the Rings or Star Wars without infringing the copyright of the original work. Same with fan remakes.

[LegibleCrimson]

That one I get to a degree, but they've hit a lot of others for less clear benefit.

[qwery]

I obviously don't speak for who you replied to, but I just wanted to point out that they made no claim about copyright.

[vore]

Legal concern = copyright infringement. What other legal concerns are there in this scenario?