@delroth @marcan I still have a hard time believing...

@delroth @marcan I still have a hard time believing they can prove 17 U.S.C. § 1201(2)(A) in court, but in this specific instance 17 U.S.C. § 1201(2)(C) would probably be the one that gets most heavily litigated. The same goes for any emulator that provides instructions for how to dump games involving cracking DRM, it seems...

Like 4 March at 21:47 | Wall-to-wall | Open on social.treehouse.systems

4 comments

Pierre Bourdon

@endrift @marcan both apply here imo, because the emulator is what's decrypting the protected work, which is circumventing technical protection measures.

(Also I assume you mean (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(C)?)

4 March at 21:50 | Open on mastodon.delroth.net

endrift

@delroth @marcan um, maybe? I'd have to go through that section again.

Also the words "primary purpose" are what make (A) somewhat arguable. But that didn't make it to court, so who knows.

4 March at 21:54 | Open on social.treehouse.systems

Hector Martin

@delroth @endrift This seems like it would be fairly easy to work around by separating out the decryption from the emulation. The Wii even had those bits for supporting plaintext games with dev versions of IOS, so it's even baked right into the format...

4 March at 21:54 | Open on social.treehouse.systems

Pierre Bourdon

@marcan @endrift possibly. I don't know the precedents ruling on how broad (a)(2)(C) would apply there. It's mostly a stupid dance anyway: I can't imagine any emulation project not settling given how expensive court proceedings would be.

4 March at 22:00 | Open on mastodon.delroth.net

Go Up