Yuzu and Citra, Switch and 3DS emulators, are dead

Yubel wrote:Theft is theft, and there’s no morally or ethically good reason for a Switch emulator - actually any emulator - to exist when you can buy the hardware/software at retail.

I play my legally purchased Zelda games on my computer with better performance and graphics than on the Switch.

This is called "format shifting" and nobody bats an eyelid when you do it with a CD.

Preezy wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Preezy wrote:People like to pretend that Nintendo are this warm and fluffy company, when in reality they're as ruthless and litigious as any other. Don't be fooled, they don't give a strawberry float about the players.

It's perfectly reasonable for them to stop stuff like this.

I think the issue is how far they go with it. It's heavy handed. I guess that's the point really.

Don't believe I said they weren't being reasonable, more that stuff like this (and that other story about them making a guy repay something ridiculous like $15m, can't remember his name) is a reminder that Nintendo aren't any different from other corporations, despite their cutesy persona. Not that that's a revelatory statement or anything.

Isn't that just the average Nintendo fan?

Problem is when you as a company are too heavy handed with things like piracy, emulation etc you actually make people feel sorry for the pirates etc, for every person Nintendo scares with there actions on this they probably push 5 people to think Screw these guys I don't really want to support them when they are this vindictive (thinking mostly of Gary Bowser with this)

Yubel wrote:It seems some people are unable to grasp morals and ethics when it comes to big corporations. Just because a company makes millions of dollars doesn't make it okay to steal from them. Theft is theft, and there’s no morally or ethically good reason for a Switch emulator - actually any emulator - to exist when you can buy the hardware/software at retail.

Yuzu and that guy who was forced into a 'lifetime of indentured servitude' strawberry floated around and found out.

The emulator itself wasn’t a problem, it’s when Yuzu were sharing roms and such on the discord server is likely what triggered Nintendo. They should have realised they were flying too close to sun with those shenanigans

Knoyleo wrote:

Yubel wrote:It seems some people are unable to grasp morals and ethics when it comes to big corporations. Just because a company makes millions of dollars doesn't make it okay to steal from them. Theft is theft, and there’s no morally or ethically good reason for a Switch emulator - actually any emulator - to exist when you can buy the hardware/software at retail.

Yuzu and that guy who was forced into a 'lifetime of indentured servitude' strawberry floated around and found out.

You are correct, theft is theft.

But piracy and emulation are not theft.

Piracy isn't theft? Ok.

I think there's clearly a meaningful difference between making a copy of a digital file which is abstractly 'owned' by a corporation, and stealing an actual thing from someone.

It would be easy to explain to an alien why the latter is wrong.

The former, you'd have to go, "well, we have this thing called 'intellectual property' where you can 'own' abstract concepts like the arrangement of words on a page, and yeah, well, it's because in the early 1700s, an increasingly powerful lobby of booksellers in London..." (and so on).

Go on.

[Six hours later.]
Alien: I understand now. We have to destroy capitalism.

Then the whole space federation clapped.

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

I only just realised I've been sig quoted in a meta dialogue for probably the first time in 21 years

I don't care how integral someone's morals are or are not, whether they are carried with conviction or not, if they are founded on lazy notions that do not stand up to reasonable skepticism and hypo/antithesis i.e. thinking, or are fundamentally anachronistic or straight up contrary applications of "law and order", I will find those morals curious. It is a missed opportunity not to question our own perspective, and to not do that is almost depressingly wasteful.

I think I just did a short post on the entire piracy debate. I'm metamorphosing! By and large, I can't be bothered.

I did come here to say, that PR statement is full of legally mandated "correct morals".

The owner of Pizza Boy on Android has shut down his solo operation too, likely to avoid any potential fallout should Nintendo start to get more aggressive. If I were the owners of Vimm.net I would be burning the servers with the Nintendo roms on it right now.

Moggy wrote:

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

Is the denial of a sale not theft?

That is to say that downloading software titles that are no longer for sale is not piracy or theft.

Carlos wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

Is the denial of a sale not theft?

That is to say that downloading software titles that are no longer for sale is not piracy or theft.

To be honest a large percentage of things downloaded for free were never going to be purchased anyways... people will play stuff for free that they'd never dream of buying.... plus sometimes piracy actually leads to sales. I pirated PSO for the dreamcast before it was properly out for example and loved it so much that as soon as I could I went and purchased it, heck I actually walked like 4 miles to the shop and 4 miles back to get it as I only had enough to buy it and not enough for the bus. Game Pass has worked in a similar way for me as I have played stuff and gone on to buy some bits cause I liked them so much.

Carlos wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

Is the denial of a sale not theft?

That is to say that downloading software titles that are no longer for sale is not piracy or theft.

I'm not convinced it denies a sale. I guess there will be some cases where somebody pirates instead of buying, but it's still not theft, no more than taping a song off the radio.

Software companies have been telling us for years now that buying a game doesn't mean you own it. So if people can't own games, how can they steal them?

Moggy wrote:

Carlos wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

Is the denial of a sale not theft?

That is to say that downloading software titles that are no longer for sale is not piracy or theft.

I'm not convinced it denies a sale. I guess there will be some cases where somebody pirates instead of buying, but it's still not theft, no more than taping a song off the radio.

Software companies have been telling us for years now that buying a game doesn't mean you own it. So if people can't own games, how can they steal them?

Yeah this gets me a lot , essentially they want you to be paying a license to play there game for a limited time, and I feel if people just accept it then the brackets will be ever and ever tightened to the point where your paying £79.99 to own a set game on a set system for one year after which it self deletes and you have to suck it up or pay again.

kerr9000 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Carlos wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ou ... ral-theft/

Pirating music, movies or games does not permanently deprive the property from the corporation that owns it. It is therefore not theft.

You can argue that it is morally or ethically wrong, but it's not theft.

Is the denial of a sale not theft?

That is to say that downloading software titles that are no longer for sale is not piracy or theft.

I'm not convinced it denies a sale. I guess there will be some cases where somebody pirates instead of buying, but it's still not theft, no more than taping a song off the radio.

Software companies have been telling us for years now that buying a game doesn't mean you own it. So if people can't own games, how can they steal them?

Yeah this gets me a lot , essentially they want you to be paying a license to play there game for a limited time, and I feel if people just accept it then the brackets will be ever and ever tightened to the point where your paying £79.99 to own a set game on a set system for one year after which it self deletes and you have to suck it up or pay again.

Indeed, can you steal something that is perpetually rented?

I have long been of the opinion that copyright law is outdated and that there should be a private fair use policy for abandonware. As long as it’s not being resold where is the problem?

Museums would kill for laws like that.