[veec_cas_tant]

I don’t think preservation is an important argument. If I own an AppleTV, and I purchase a movie through their service, why should it be illegal for me to export that movie to watch on a different device? I own the hardware and the data, why would any law even care at that point?

Obviously piracy should be illegal, but I just don’t see any argument against emulation even if it is current.

[jokethrowaway]

You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.

Of course it's completely bonkers and the result of massive corporations bribing governments to limit our freedom.

As long as I don't sign a contract with an entity I should be able to do anything I want with bytes. Once I enter into an agreement not to share some data I received then I should be punishable - but no shortcuts, sue everyone in court with a due process and lawyer fees.

Copyright and patents are the most retarded and culture damaging thing I've seen in my lifetime

[frameset]

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

[wilsonnb3]

Quite a pithy phrase that has been popular lately but piracy advocates have always claimed that piracy isn't stealing, regardless of whether or not "buying is owning" so I don't think the two are related.

[kenmacd]

> You don't own the data, just a temporary right to use it.

Agreed, bonkers. You didn't 'own the data' when it was a VCR recording a broadcast TV show or movie, but now it's all "but they broke our ROT13-super-crypto, throw the book at 'em".

[archy_]

Pretty sure the TOS of AppleTV prohibits exporting the movie - you have a limited license to view it only under the circumstances Apple dictates, in partnership with everyone Apple has deals with. If you want to be able to watch it on other devices, you need to purchase a limited perpetual license in the form of a DVD/bluray.

Now, of course, this depends on the movie having a physical release (which is becoming a bit of a rarity these days), but still, the MPAA has made sure to write ironclad contracts to prohibit watching streamed content the way you want.

[crtasm]

The ToS has nothing to do with if something is legal or not.

[gamblor956]

For this reason, most of the major studios are members of Movies Anywhere, which allows you to access movies purchased at any (participating) storefront on any participating VOD service. Amazon, Fandango, Vudu, Disney, are participants.

[veec_cas_tant]

True, but the example was just an example. Buying a game on PC and making it run on a PS5 - why would something like that ever be illegal?

[gamblor956]

It's generally not, because you can run an OS on a PS5 that can then run the game, and the DMCA allows for this (with some limitations) because, and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)

Dolphin does require a bit of DRM hacking, but Dolphin (arguably) falls under one of the DCMA exceptions for archival use purposes. This is the second important point: the Dolphin emulates a system which has not been on sale for a decade. It's still possible* to use it for general piracy instead of archival access, but the archival use trumps the piracy concern. (It would be different though if the Dolphin developers started offering Dolphin on a commercial basis.)

But Yuzu is a commercial offering, for a console that is still on sale, and its use requires DRM hacking. So it's got 3 fatal flaws.

The only surprise is that Nintendo let it live as long as it has. You can bet they won't make that mistake again with their next console.

[veec_cas_tant]

> ...and this is a very important point: there is generally no DRM-hacking required. But...if DRM hacking is required to get a PC game to work on a PS5, it's illegal to do so under the DMCA. (Note: DRM is defined very broadly for DMCA purposes.)

Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM? Regardless, it's more of a philosophical argument than a legal argument. If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

[gamblor956]

Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM?

They could, which is why I was careful to point out that you can install an OS on your PS5, on which you can then run (some) games on it without having to circumvent DRM.

If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

Because U.S. (and EU) law doesn't have any exceptions that would cover that use, since the Switch is still being actively sold on the market today. (And as noted elsewhere, this is a large part of why SNES, N64, and Gamecube emulators haven't been targeted by Nintendo: the machines are no longer sold and so emulation allows for archival use/access to games on those platforms. This is generally a permitted use.)

[boolemancer]

As far as I'm aware, the DMCA doesn't have any sort of exception for archival, but it does have one for software interoperability, which emulators definitely are, regardless of how current the hardware being emulated is.

[account42]

> Obviously piracy should be illegal

Of course, piracy deprives other people of their property and/or lives which is not something we should accept. Neither is copyright.