this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)

Emulation

3521 readers
1 users here now

Community to talk about emulation & roms.

RULES:

1.) No bigotry

LINKS:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
lnxprcy@lemmy.ml
113
Here’s how the makers of the “Suyu” Switch emulator plan to avoid getting sued (arstechnica.com)
submitted 8 months ago by Lanky_Pomegranate530@midwest.social to c/emulation@lemmy.ml
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Dev says project is "in a legal gray area we are trying to work our way out of..."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Germany isn't any better though, in fact, Germany has even more restrictive and absurd copyright law than the US.

Here:

The manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertising with a view to sale or rental and the possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components as well as the provision of services which:

  1. are the subject of promotion, advertising or marketing with the aim of circumventing effective technological measures, or
  2. have only a limited economic purpose or benefit other than the circumvention of effective technological measures, or
  3. are primarily designed, manufactured, adapted or provided for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures. \

is prohibited.

And I'm certain that Nintendo will choose the correct court to argue any modern emulator is violating this to sue in. After all, one court in particular is notorious for ignoring all reason when it comes to copyright. For instance, it ruled that you are violating copyright for publishing photos of your home if your walls have a photo wallpaper. After all, making and posting an image of the copyrighted design of the wallpaper on your website, even if the wallpaper is just in the background, constitutes an illegal copy.

[–] kaputter_Aimbot@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The commercial use (e.g. sale, rental) is prohibited according to your cited text.

The manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertising with a view to sale or rental and the possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components as well as the provision of services which: [...]

And while the LG Köln (Cologne) sided with the copyright owner of the wallpaper, other LGs and the OLG Düsseldorf - a higher court - said otherwise:

Abbildung einer Fototapete im Netz ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (2024-02-29, in German)

But the copyright owner is appealing that decision and the BGH - the highest court - has to decide.

Urheberrecht: Foto von Fototapete landet beim Bundesgerichtshof (2024-03-07, in German)

And this is just absurd:

The case I ZR 140/23 is really meta: A woman posted a screenshot of a website of a tennis center online; the documented website also contains a photograph of the guest room of the tennis center, whose wall is (in)decorated with a photo wallpaper on which a picture motif is reproduced to which the photographer claims rights via his company registered in Canada.

[–] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

what you have quoted is mandated by the WIPO treaty and is perfectly normal to have in your copyright laws, USA has similar laws too