• pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re not bogus. The emulator that shut down were selling a product using a proprietary encryption key owned by Nintendo.

      That’s why Dolphin still exists.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Forgive my rudeness, but have you always enjoyed licking corporate boots or is it more of an acquired taste? Sure, companies have a moral right to recoup their R&D costs on a console, but I fully reject the Divine Right of Shareholders. As long as the emulators aren’t sold for profit and no one is hurt, a multibillion dollar company like Nintendo has zero moral ground to tell us that we cannot emulate consoles that we have bought to play games that we also bought.

      • catsup@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Proprietary encryption key

        What if the key was in a book? It would have to be protected by free-speech, which makes it uncensorable.

        What if the key contents were used as hex values to make a flag? Would you censor a flag too?

        No such thing as “proprietary encryption keys” exist.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          The key wasn’t used in a book or in the hex values for a flag. That’s like saying the formula for Coke can’t be proprietary because it could be put in a book.

          Software can absolutely be proprietary, and that key is part of the software.

      • denshi@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        IANAL, but from a EU-centric perspective on copyright (which is the only one I can reliably talk about) the idea of a proprietary encryption key is bogus. A creative work can be copyrighted if it has sufficient originality (or under some other very specific conditions). Smaller parts of such a work are not copyrighted if they don’t meet that criteria on their own. The encryption key (which is very probably randomly generated and definitely not a creative work) thus can’t be copyrighted on it’s own. At least in the EU, there should be no argument against sharing said key (at least in respect to copyright).

        I honestly can’t talk about other jurisdictions (maybe someone else here can) but I imagine it should be similar to this in many other countries.