You're entitled to your own opinion, but keep in mind that it's people like him who make corporations condemn the technology instead of the users of the technology. He's blatantly pirating, trying to profit off of it, and taunting Nintendo to do something about it.

And what they're doing about it is not just going after him but also the people who created the emulators, so more people like him can't exist. Nintendo wasn't nearly as aggressive about going after emulators until people started using them to play unreleased games, and now, in the span of a year, they took out the main developers of both major emulators.

As someone who suffers from severe motion sickness and uses emulation with framerate unlocking patches to alleviate it, these people's actions are screwing over me and other gamers with accessibility challenges.

[–] fern@lemmy.autism.place 0 points 5 days ago (3 children)

keep in mind that it's people like him who make corporations condemn the technology instead of the users of the technology

Hard disagree. Corporations get to make their own rules, and this person is a scapegoat. They've been attacking emulators for a long time.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

While it's true that they've been trying to stop emulators for a long time, they haven't been able to do too much about them because of Sony v Bleem.

Modern emulators exist in a legal gray area, though, and might be violating the DMCA. The more of these assholes that pop up and get sued, the higher the likelihood that one of them refuses to settle, gets steamrolled by Nintendo, and gives them and every other console manufacturer the legal precedent that emulators are piracy/DRM-circumvention tools.

Even if you disagree with my belief that Nintendo would be less aggressive this year if people hadn't been spotlighting emulation-based piracy and provoking them, you should be concerned about that.

[–] KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sony v Connectix is the actual case that set the precedent for emulation, not Bleem. The Bleem case decided whether or not the use of screenshots of copyrighted games to advertise their emulator was legal. I believe it just deferred to the Connectix case for the legality of the emulator.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Thanks for the correction. I sometimes get those two mixed up in my memory, and it's a really stupid problem that I need to fix.

load more comments (1 replies)