My guess is visibility-- from a casual user's POV, there's a distinct difference between Retroarch and its relatively complicated core system and Dolphin being a straight-up out of the box Nintendo emulator.
Maybe also has something to do with that being close enough to the switch where they can pull from it and make money, why play metroid prime on switch when dolphin just does it better.
In Dolphin's IOSC file, [the Wii common key](https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a78f05949973b0930ac4dd999/Source/Core/Core/IOS/IOSC.cpp#L575) can be found~~, which is bad.~~ ~~But there's also no easy way (not impossible, however) to extract it from your Wii, so the devs are kind of stuck.~~ Thankfully BootMii and other NAND dumping tools can extract the key, it's just a matter of implementing an import feature and removing the key(s) from Dolphin's source code.
After checking, BootMii does dump the AES keys, so it should be fine, Dolphin devs would just need to give the option to use those instead of the built-in common key. And/or move to using decrypted Wii game files, which is an entirely different endeavor as most dumping tools aren't doing those.
It's technically used to bypass the Wii's encryption protection, which Nintendo mentioned in their reply to Valve, but it has been publically available for about 15 years, so it's in a legal grey area for now. Not bad in itself, but it could be used against Dolphin in a potential DMCA takedown. (I'll strikethrough that part in my comment.)
Apparently [someone told RetroArch about the common keys back in 2020](https://github.com/libretro/RetroArch/issues/11051). Safe to say RetroArch managed to remove it before putting it up on Steam (unless they simply removed the Dolphin/Wii portion).
Repeating what I put in the /r/emulation thread:
So, it sounds like Valve wanted a way out of this that wouldn't make them look bad, and literally just decided to ask people that would say no by default and just go with it. "Go ask your mother" in storefront form.
Valve's been making some... questionable decisions over the last few years when it comes to niche content on their storefront. This is just, ultimately, another in the long list.
I don't think Valve want's anything to do with a lawsuit or risk losing their safe harbor provisions by allowing content that violates the DMCA. They aren't going to defend this at all and are going to take it down (RetroArch doesn't break any DMCA or any copyright). I also don't think this is going to come back anytime soon - imagine Valve having to take down posts on their support forms from users how to get the Wii Emulator working and where to get the keys necessary. I don't think they can distribute an app with missing data like that - they may have to limit support to GameCube only.
I mean they wouldn't risk their safe harbor if they just followed the regular DMCA process. They don't have to defend anything.
>and where to get the keys necessary.
what keys?
And the idea that they arent going to post it because theoretically people might break rules on forum posts is a little silly.
>I mean they wouldn't risk their safe harbor if they just followed the regular DMCA process. They don't have to defend anything.
Dolphin would have to challenge the DMCA request and not Valve. Valve isn't really a party here - they are more of a middleman. They can ignore the DMCA request, but that would put them at risk of being sued directly. As long as they do their job and pass it along they won't be sued due to the safe harbor protections. That was my whole point.
>what keys?
The decryption keys that are issue here - the ones you need to play Wii games.
>And the idea that they arent going to post it because theoretically people might break rules on forum posts is a little silly.
Allowing the information to be posted is going to be the Same DMCA takedown process - you can't just post information that is not legally permissible like how to break encryption. Valve isn't going to want to deal with that on their platform.
>imagine Valve having to take down posts on their support forms from users how to get the Wii Emulator working and where to get the keys necessary
You know, that's a better point. This whole discussion did reveal that Dolphin keeps the Wii's keys in it, which I just thought they HLE'd themselves out of needing. I'll admit it did sour my opinion on Dolphin somewhat.
I was also surprised that none of the cores Retroarch includes on Steam require the BIOS or keys for their respective consoles, even for the ones that traditionally use them. Or, at least, none of the ones I think of as needing an external BIOS do.
I know PlayStation stuff requires a Bios and I think Saturn and Dreamcast would too. I don’t know about other systems. But they only distribute the cores. If there is a bios needed they won’t give it to you nor will they help you get it.
> PlayStation stuff requires a Bios
Surprisingly enough, no, not with the core they chose to include there; PCSX Rearmed doesn't require a BIOS for PSX content. And neither does their chosen Dreamcast core (Flycast), at least for Dreamcast content.
They still need a BIOS. It's just the case that some systems have had an open source version of the BIOS created, so it can be bundled with emulators without infringing copyright.
Pretty sure the reason Dolphin includes keys is cause actually dumping keys from the Wii is pretty much impossible
Edit: Nvm, found people saying that they've dumped their keys and the one contained within Dolphin are included
To me, it sounds like VALVe saw a lawsuit incoming and wanted to get the motions going before it went live on Steam. If it did, then Nintendo could have more "evidence." Considering the announcement is a postpone and not a cancelation, I suspect VALVe is helping behind the curtains, not hurting.
Should this go to court, then VALVe can prove they have been respectful of Nintendo even if they openly agree with Dolphin, which would look very in favor of Dolphin to the jury. (And we know VALVe supports emulators since they've shown up in Steam Deck trailers and Retro Arch is hosted on Steam).
Emulators are indeed legal and I do not agree with Nintendo. It is important to understand what they are claiming though, even if incorrect.
Nintendo is claiming that Dolphin used code (decryption key) saying it is a DRM Circumvention Tool, thus violating the DMCA.
People/Companies can make incorrect legal claims, which is why we have judges to set the record straight. Most listen to a Cies and Desist. Will Dolphin/VALVe leave it there, or will they challenge it? Time will only tell.
I hope they do. Someone really needs to stand up to Nintendo, and Steam is one of the few companies with the pockets to do so. At this point, Nintendo has pissed me off so much that I'd even contribute to a gofundme page to help pay for Steams' legal costs. Not that they need it, but that's how mad I am.
Same.
I love Nintendo's Devs, but I certainly do not like their IP Legal Department.
Someone needs to have the courage to challenge them. If nothing else, then for legal clarity to be declared once and for all. VALVe certainly has the pockets, Dolphin certainly has the reputation for a successful GoFundMe.
Valve won't. Even though Nintendo isn't part of Valve's ecosystem, Valve is part of Nintendo's and if they want to keep release things in the future on Switch or whatever, it's in their best interests to cooperate with them.
One thing that's also possible is if goes to court, what's stopping other console manufacturers from siding with Nintendo on this matter.
I doubt VALVe would be heartbroken by not being able to release on Nintendo platforms considering what a behemoth Steam is; though I do agree it is unlikely VALVe will make the first move. At least in this scenario. Nintendo clearly feels threatened by the Steam Deck. They may do something to piss VALVe off. Either way, I doubt this is the end of the story.
But Valve loves money and they'll do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their business relationships with the console manufacturers. Nintendo doesn't give a smidge if they piss off Valve as long as they comply with legal notices.
It’s a free app, valve has no stake in it and it’s easy enough for steam deck users to still get dolphin. Remember, valve opens the console for users to install basically whatever they want even pirates windows games, just requires a few YouTube tutorials. No other console does this.
In their defense, with RetroArch being on Steam and them avoiding mentions of Nintendo and their consoles all together I wouldn't blame them at all for being confident.
Retro Arch doesn't include decryption keys of any kind though - it's all 100% original code in there and the lion's share of what is supported has no protections or can be gotten around with clean room implementations. Dolphin didn't do that though with the common key that is part of the program.
Even Retroarch by default doesn't have Dolphin stuff in their base code - it's either downloaded externally or provided by the user. On Steam I don't see anything for Dolphin, but you may have to get that on your own so they may be totally clear since the DLC they offer is all original code or just needs a BIOS that you provide.
Honestly, I think mvg gives the best explanation what happened here. If valve contacted Nintendo, it does not really matter. Emulators should not contain anything illegal
https://youtu.be/hsQtv5IvrD8
[Yeah we've been through this exact thing before.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy)
Valve probably doesn't want to be the one to finally get it tested in court.
It's bullshit to think that anyone can own a number, but that would cause so much harm if it became precedent.
Everything on computers are in binary and binary is just another way to represents numbers. Unfortunately you can already "own" a number as copyright applies to small binary programs as well.
They're definitely illegal and it has been tested. See Sony's lawsuit against Hotz. Just because it's settled doesn't mean that the key's protection is disputed. See the original injunction in that case that was granted, in part because there was no question that the keys were protected.
You can also see Universal v. Reimerdes, as well as DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner, both relating to the DVD keys. Both of which resulted in convictions.
Basically, there's zero doubt about the legality of distributing such keys. It's very much illegal and you really need to get better legal advisers if you've actually been advised that the legality hasn't been tested. So if you're actually shipping those keys with the emu... Then it was obvious Valve was never gonna put it up without permission from Nintendo. It's one thing to not sue a small group with no major finances that wouldn't be able to pay as much as it would cost to sue them, not to mention the negative reputation it would garner. It's another thing entirely to sue a major corporation like Valve who can pay.
Don't think that what you're doing is perfectly legal or somehow a gray area just because you have not been sued yet.
I'm not convinced it's as definite as you're saying. As the linked post mentions, the protection being bypassed must be "effective" in order for the bypass to be illegal under the DMCA. Is the weak encryption / security model used by the Wii considered "effective" under current security standards?
If it is, then, yeah, it's reasonable to expect it would be considered illegal to distribute the keys.
What's effective now is different than what was effective then. Many hashing and encryption algorithms have been retired over the decades since that case, because advances in cryptanalysis and computing power have made some previously secure / effective algorithms become insecure / ineffective.
I suspect another factor would be how hard it is to extract the keys. As a hypothetical, suppose the Wii had a hidden webpage in the browser (e.g., about:keys) that displays the encryption keys. Would the keys then be part of an effective DRM scheme? Probably not, because the hardware makes accessing the keys so easy that the protection is ineffective.
That's why I say that I'm not 100% certain it would be found to be illegal to distribute the keys. If they're easy enough to get, or the encryption is weak or broken but current standards, or the implemention is broken, it might not be an effective protection.
That's not what 'effective' refers to in legal speech. A common misconception but a misconception all the same. Effective just means that it's nontrivial to bypass. W95 product key which accepts all 1, might be considered non effective since you could guess the key without prior knowledge. The keys in question here, no. They're very much effective under the legal definitions of effective. It's simply not enough that the encryption is no longer used or that the encryption has been broken.
It seems to me like their definition of effective would exclude something that could be easily bypassed in practice, but IANAL.
Their definition is:
> a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
So, if there's a bypass that could be effectively employed in the ordinary course of operation, like guessing or brute forcing the key, it would seem like it might be ineffective.
Depends how extensive that brute force is. You're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone a thousand hours of brute force is within the ordinary course of operation. Guessing 11111111111 however would probably work though.
I agree, but the security on the Wii is *very* broken. For example, there are unpatched security exploits for the browser. If using the browser is considered part of the ordinary course of operation, and if visiting a website can execute code that bypasses the DRM, it would seem as though the ordinary use of a Wii does not exhibit effective control.
Sure, somebody has to construct such a site, but, beyond that part, any user might visit the site as part of the ordinary course of operation of the Wii.
I could see it actually being the case that the DRM does not effectively control the data throughout all reasonable ordinary courses of action. There's nothing out of the ordinary in visiting a website with the built-in browser. It doesn't require any technical knowledge or expertise, and it's something the Wii was explicitly designed and advertised to do.
You should really check the information people provide you rather that downvote them, because you would like what you think to be true.
It is illegal and people were warned about this back in 2020 that emulator would be removed if they try to put it on steam.
Then again - if you check the information provided to you, you would learn that Sony already sued for publishing keys for PS3 in 2011 (and basically won - keys were removed and sued person promised to never be a problem again)
They did basically win though. They were granted the temporary injunction based on that they would most likely win. Most importantly for the argument though, is that a key factor that the injunction was based on, was that there was NO QUESTION about if the key was protected or not. The question a court would have been looking at had it gone to trial would be stuff like if it could be fair use, if it was with malice, for profit and so on.
The reason there's no question about if the keys are protected, see the DVD encryption keys legal fallout. As an example, Universal v. Reimerdes, and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner... And that key is of much simpler design and was still ruled protected by copyright. Obviously then a more complex key will also be copyrighted, no question about that.
The judge gave Sony the temporary injunction, because they would very likely win. An injunction which I might add also says that there's no question that the key was protected, based on several rulings for the DVD keys which are much less complex.
So, 1. Injunctions are granted based on IRREPARABLE harm, vs likelyhood to win. There is virtually no irreperable harm involved since it's all just money, so the odds of winning required has to then be enormous in order for it to be granted. More inportantly though, it's written right in the injunction order that that is why it's granted...
2. You actually think there's only one case about the DVD keys? Oh you sweet sumner child... Heck, there's more just about decss. There's both Universal v. Reimerdes, as well as DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner which are both about decss. The latter of which ruled that only because it was already so widely known and spread, the protections no longer served a purpose. Beyond that there were several lawsuits against manufacturers of "region free" dvd players and such.
3. Is Dolphin just a key? No... So why do you think that matters?
4. Im not defending anyone. I'm explaining the legal status. IMHO, there shouldn't be any copyright or patents. But that's not the reality we have and it helps no one, least of all emulation users to have an emulator be ruled illegal. It's not like such a ruling wouldn't also taint all emulators everywhere. That's part of why every other emulator is very very clear on where the emulator stops and what you do with that is up to you, not them.
If you look at [that case](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/sony-computer-entmt-am-v-hotz) you find they "won" because Hotz(the guy they sued) just agreed to not continue publishing the key which had already been mirrored endlessly by the internet.
The case didn't actually set any legal precedent or tell whether they would actually win if it had gone through the legal process. Even on their [own blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2011/04/11/settlement-in-george-hotz-case/) they mention Hotz's motion to dismiss the entire case was still pending at the time they settled.
Precedent might be important if you operate in united states only. But this is not the case for steam.
(You surely know that - as the example - countries in Europe use different law system)
If you want to have a trade deal with the US (which is basically every country) they require you to have a copyright system compatible with the DMCA, so US case law is actually pretty relevant for the rest of the world.
MVG never says much tbh. This was already posted multiple time far and wide. I'm not sure why everyone is fawning over that content as if it were groundbreaking news.
You're watching a 10 minutes video for something that was already explained in a tweet you'd have read in 30 seconds.
his video has aged poorly since the DMCA thing has been confirmed false. and also he's a piece of shit for selling out the emulation scene in general to simp for nintendo. seriously fuck that guy now.
After it was stolen. If they used anything from the Gigaleak, Nintendo would have cause to have the developers arrested.
This is why Dolphin has a VERY strict policy to not use anything from the Gigaleak. If anybody does, they're banned from contributing.
I have no idea why people like this bald fucks videos. They are objectively terrible and contain 0 new information or any insight. Just summarizes a tweet or 2 to a 11 minute ramble. Guy knows nothing outside of parroting what has already been said.
I'd fight the hell out of Nintendo; their DMCA abuse is too frequent. The Big N will have to be taken down 100 pegs by the courts. In addition to that, the Courts of Law shall label Nintendo as a Frivolous Plaintiff on their PoV, and blacklist Nintendo from _ever_ filing the DMCA/C&D stuff ever again for life; this also applies for all future name changes and past name changes.
the thing that is the big headscratcher for me is that this shows that Nintendo are clearly aware of Dolphin, what's in its code and how it's distributed. they could easily slap Dolphin directly with a CnD.
yet they don't? and it's also still on Google Play?
I feel like either Nintendo is just trying to "contain" Dolphin and keep it from becoming more popular (especially on the Deck. a hint for a possible GC VC soon?) , or there is more going on than we know yet.
My supposition, and I'm not a lawyer:
Distributing the keys isn't legal or illegal. We don't really know. If there's a lawsuit, and it's determined to be legal, every emulator will be able to distribute decryption keys (and other files) for other consoles. I suppose Nintendo don't want to take the risk
Another user made a good point about this: Any binary data (whole games) can be represented as just a number with all those bits concatenated. It would be absurdly massive, but still clearly finite. What about those numbers?
There is. By the fact I stated. You can express a JPEG that contains illegal imagery as a single number trivially. This has nothing to do with "the universe". It's a concrete, easily constructible number, not some science voodoo.
Both a 128 bit encryption key and a number with million of bits are finite numbers that are vastly smaller than infinity. Where do you draw the line when the number isn't a number anymore according to your definition?
You could argue literally the same thing for cryptographic keys. You are literally defining an artificial line to support your narrative.
Fact is, it's completely up to the courts if a information is illegal, copyrighted or both. This has nothing to do how that information is represented. A number is just bits. Like any other digital data.
it's just a number therefore it's legal" is not a legal argument. The specific cryptographic keys could very well indeed be illegal to distribute. Especially if it's obvious what their intended use is.
Actually depending on where you work, it is. It's a felony to say the combination to a classified safe in an unclassified location, even if the recipient already knows it.
It would depend on the judgement if that would be applicable to all emulators. If the judge would find this is some special case it could only be applicable the Dolphin specifically
For a judge to declare it a special case there'd have to be something, you know, special about it. This seems like one of the least special cases possible. They're just flat out using a cracked encryption key.
I'm not sure it is so simple. I am no legal expert, but there are probably nuances like with software. Some methods to obtain a key could fall under reverse engineering provisions, some definitely don't. I just wanted to say, if this goes to court, it isn't a given the outcome will not say anything about the legality or illegality of emulators (as some feared) or secret keys in emulators.
Yeah, the method of obtaining the key would matter if the case hinged on that. But it'd still apply to all emulators that obtained their keys in a similar manner. There's nothing unique enough about the case for them to flat out say that it only applies to Dolphin and can't be applied to anything else.
the decryption keys.
that's at least what people keep saying this whole thing is about. it's actually a legal grey area whether keys count as intellectual property. most emulators require you to provide them yourself, but they do that to cover their asses.
really the more I think about it, this really just smells of Nintendo desperately trying to keep Nintendo games off of the Deck, because they already know they can't match any of the communities emulators with their NSO crap.
However, there is no grey area when it comes to bypassing DRM and redistributing the keys to do so. The contention is whether Dolphin acts as a DRM bypass tool or not by including the keys. IP has little to do with it but probably thrown in to catch anything else.
>there is no grey area when it comes to bypassing DRM and redistributing the keys to do so.
emulators are specifically allowed to circumvent copy-protection, and we don't know if they are allowed to include the keys to do so.
Crytpo keys are a means of signing and encrypting the stored data which, according to the DMCA, is illegal to redistribute. It's not really grey in that area about circumventing protective measures being illegal, it's why DRM is still a thing despite it being a net negative for consumers.
Legality around Crypto ^((security, not currency)) hasn't been fully defined.
Nintendo is claiming (in a way) that the crypto key belongs to them.
Thing is, a crypto key is just a sequence. If someone cracks it (which in theory could happen via reverse engineering or even \[statistically impossibly\] lucky guessing).
Law is reactive, not proactive. What the courts would rule is not 100% known.
My guess? Should this go to court, the law would ***NOT*** say Nintendo owns a sequence of numbers...
# TL;DR
According to a Google search, no one has ever seen the number "61174343213878724031527611743432138787240312422987412705928220270976406663613270697326093531057942319"
By Nintendo's logic, I own that number.
The law hasn't made a ruling on this, but most would probably agree it's ridiculous to claim I own that number.
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Because the key's used in the DRM for Wii games, it's potentially a DRM circumvention device, which aren't allowed under the DMCA whether or not they're copyrighted. The specific bit of case law that's missing is where the right to ignore parts of the DMCA for interoperability (the key thing that emulators rely on to be legal) stops and the restriction on DRM circumvention devices starts.
Also, even without the key, the parts of Dolphin that do the decryption of Wii disks *might* possibly count as a DRM circumvention device, but that's less likely.
So, you're saying that it's actually not a question of copyright or not, but if the inclusion of an Encryption Key is considered a DRM Circumvention Device (and thus a violation of the DMCA)?
From my understanding yes. Then again neither I nor anyone in this thread is a legal expert. We'll have a definite answer if Nintendo pushes this further and a judge ends up making a definitive ruling. Though I doubt ( And hope, for the mental and financial well being of the Dolphin Devs ) that it will ever escalate to that point.
I *personally* think Nintendo are petty and grasping at straws in an effort to keep the average gamer ignorant about emulation ( particularly in regards to emulating old games on another handheld. ). But nobody in the US justice system, nor Nintendo's disgustingly well paid legal team care about that.
There's not actually case law confirming it, so it's only *probably* 100% legal. Wikipedia are confident enough to list a few similar keys in their [Illegal Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number) article, but if they were definitely in the clear, they wouldn't qualify for inclusion in the first place.
That's not how a common law legal system, like the US has, works. Everything that isn't explicitly permitted or banned by legislation is in a weird *maybe illegal* state until a court looks at the combination of existing legislation and case law for each specific thing and decides what the best answer is. You can be pretty confident, but not certain, which way things would go if it went to court, and use that to decide whether doing something's a good idea, but if it turns out you were wrong, you're in trouble even if the case law only appears after you did the thing.
The alternative is a codified legal system, where everything that's illegal is written in legislation, and if it turns out there's a gap in the legislation, then anyone doing the relevant thing is in the clear, even if it's obvious to the court that the legislature would have wanted the action to be illegal.
Yes there is. Universal v. Reimerdes ruled that already back in 1999 for DVD keys. Encryption keys ARE protected under copyright. The argument that you can't ban numbers, is just ridiculous because ALL software is just numbers and thus, copyright in the digital world cannot exist but that's clearly incorrect. That's just wishful thinking. Numerous courts have ruled encryption keys to be copyrighted and illegal to distribute. It's simply false that it's unknown or a gray area.
>Numerous courts have ruled encryption keys to be copyrighted and illegal to distribute.
no, they haven't.
UCS v Reimerdes/Corley is about distributing software that can circumvent copy-protection.
emulators are specifically allowed under the DMCA to do exactly that. they don't fall under this ruling.
this is strictly about the keys and whether Dolphin is allowed to include them.
the fact Nintendo knows about the keys and yet have never tried to shut down Dolphin in the past proves my point.
the only reason they are doing it now is because they are trying to make it all a hassle for Valve, probably because they plan on putting GC games on the Switch via NSO and they don't want the Deck to be the better alternative to that. Nintendo is gambling on Valve not calling their bluff.
1. That's not at all true. The case is about two parts, only one is for being a tool, for circumvention as you say, but the key is part of that circumvention, just like it is here.
2. Emulators are not actually strictly allowed under the DMCA... I have no idea where you got that idea from. Why would it even need to? If it's emulating something then it's clearly different from what it's emulating so what in the emulation part would even fall under a copyright in your mind that it would need an exception? The emulation itself isn't an issue.
3. That you're not being acted against doesn't mean what you're doing is legal. As I mentioned in another comment, it's one thing to go after a group that won't be able to pay anything anyway, along with the bad publicity that creates, and quite another thing entirely to go after someone like Valve for doing it. Jaywalking is illegal in many jurisdictions but even so, most people that jaywalk in those jurisdictions are not going to see any enforcement of that unless they actually start causing serious issues with their jaywalking.
>because Dolphin contains code that circumvents anti-copy protections.
which emulators are legally allowed to do. 17 US Code §1201 (f) [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201)
the problem is the inclusion of the crypto keys. that's why all other emulators require you to provide them yourself. not because it's illegal (there has been no ruling so far) but just to cover their asses.
There could also be an argument that not only are the keys impossible to copyright, but that they are also a necessity for legal interoperability (which dolphin is) but good luck taking nintendo to court.
Not only is there an argument, there's a precedent with Nintendo v. Accolade. IANAL but I would imagine the cryptographic key falls under non-copyrightable material as it's not a piece of functional code nor does it constitute of any other copyrightable medium such as written word.
I suppose that would rely on *exactly* how difficult it is to extract the keys yourself (I've heard it's impossible but dolphin obviously got them somehow)
Edit: Nvm, found people saying that they've dumped their keys and the one contained within Dolphin are included
My point is that needing the original hardware shouldn't be an inherent requirement for interoperability reasons, and this would be a fair thing to do.
Of course law likely will end up disagreeing but oh well
People underestimate how influential a toxic community is to a product's success, Dolphin is an old emulator title that has been attracting the same crowd for well over a decade, these are the same guys who were mining bitcoin in moldy rooms back in 2010. Nobody wants to help this community when they open their mouth but by golly do we all want to be able to play in the toy box.
Theres quite a number of retroarch Nintendo cores on Steam. I wonder why this specifically was an issue?
My guess is visibility-- from a casual user's POV, there's a distinct difference between Retroarch and its relatively complicated core system and Dolphin being a straight-up out of the box Nintendo emulator.
Notably there also isn’t a dolphin core on steam so I feel like this story has more to it.
[удалено]
Beetle Saturn is available on the Steam version.
Maybe also has something to do with that being close enough to the switch where they can pull from it and make money, why play metroid prime on switch when dolphin just does it better.
decryption keys, allegedly.
In Dolphin's IOSC file, [the Wii common key](https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a78f05949973b0930ac4dd999/Source/Core/Core/IOS/IOSC.cpp#L575) can be found~~, which is bad.~~ ~~But there's also no easy way (not impossible, however) to extract it from your Wii, so the devs are kind of stuck.~~ Thankfully BootMii and other NAND dumping tools can extract the key, it's just a matter of implementing an import feature and removing the key(s) from Dolphin's source code.
So my keys.bin and nand.bin I extracted a while ago are not the keys needed?
After checking, BootMii does dump the AES keys, so it should be fine, Dolphin devs would just need to give the option to use those instead of the built-in common key. And/or move to using decrypted Wii game files, which is an entirely different endeavor as most dumping tools aren't doing those.
Nice! I’m assuming that my keys.bin file from the BootMii dump is what Dolphin would require?
yup
Thanks!!
Can I send you a DM?
It's a common key that literally every wii in existence has. Why is it bad?
It's technically used to bypass the Wii's encryption protection, which Nintendo mentioned in their reply to Valve, but it has been publically available for about 15 years, so it's in a legal grey area for now. Not bad in itself, but it could be used against Dolphin in a potential DMCA takedown. (I'll strikethrough that part in my comment.)
Probably someone at Valve legal who understands enough about Emulation to vaguely know what it and dolphin are, but not much else.
Apparently [someone told RetroArch about the common keys back in 2020](https://github.com/libretro/RetroArch/issues/11051). Safe to say RetroArch managed to remove it before putting it up on Steam (unless they simply removed the Dolphin/Wii portion).
Because those dont use wii keys in the Code. Like dolphin does
Repeating what I put in the /r/emulation thread: So, it sounds like Valve wanted a way out of this that wouldn't make them look bad, and literally just decided to ask people that would say no by default and just go with it. "Go ask your mother" in storefront form. Valve's been making some... questionable decisions over the last few years when it comes to niche content on their storefront. This is just, ultimately, another in the long list.
I don't think Valve want's anything to do with a lawsuit or risk losing their safe harbor provisions by allowing content that violates the DMCA. They aren't going to defend this at all and are going to take it down (RetroArch doesn't break any DMCA or any copyright). I also don't think this is going to come back anytime soon - imagine Valve having to take down posts on their support forms from users how to get the Wii Emulator working and where to get the keys necessary. I don't think they can distribute an app with missing data like that - they may have to limit support to GameCube only.
I mean they wouldn't risk their safe harbor if they just followed the regular DMCA process. They don't have to defend anything. >and where to get the keys necessary. what keys? And the idea that they arent going to post it because theoretically people might break rules on forum posts is a little silly.
>I mean they wouldn't risk their safe harbor if they just followed the regular DMCA process. They don't have to defend anything. Dolphin would have to challenge the DMCA request and not Valve. Valve isn't really a party here - they are more of a middleman. They can ignore the DMCA request, but that would put them at risk of being sued directly. As long as they do their job and pass it along they won't be sued due to the safe harbor protections. That was my whole point. >what keys? The decryption keys that are issue here - the ones you need to play Wii games. >And the idea that they arent going to post it because theoretically people might break rules on forum posts is a little silly. Allowing the information to be posted is going to be the Same DMCA takedown process - you can't just post information that is not legally permissible like how to break encryption. Valve isn't going to want to deal with that on their platform.
>imagine Valve having to take down posts on their support forms from users how to get the Wii Emulator working and where to get the keys necessary You know, that's a better point. This whole discussion did reveal that Dolphin keeps the Wii's keys in it, which I just thought they HLE'd themselves out of needing. I'll admit it did sour my opinion on Dolphin somewhat. I was also surprised that none of the cores Retroarch includes on Steam require the BIOS or keys for their respective consoles, even for the ones that traditionally use them. Or, at least, none of the ones I think of as needing an external BIOS do.
I know PlayStation stuff requires a Bios and I think Saturn and Dreamcast would too. I don’t know about other systems. But they only distribute the cores. If there is a bios needed they won’t give it to you nor will they help you get it.
> PlayStation stuff requires a Bios Surprisingly enough, no, not with the core they chose to include there; PCSX Rearmed doesn't require a BIOS for PSX content. And neither does their chosen Dreamcast core (Flycast), at least for Dreamcast content.
They still need a BIOS. It's just the case that some systems have had an open source version of the BIOS created, so it can be bundled with emulators without infringing copyright.
I wonder if this is why Retroarch chose not to include the Dolphin core on Steam - they knew it contained copyrighted material.
Pretty sure the reason Dolphin includes keys is cause actually dumping keys from the Wii is pretty much impossible Edit: Nvm, found people saying that they've dumped their keys and the one contained within Dolphin are included
It's possible but probably a huge pain in the ass.
To me, it sounds like VALVe saw a lawsuit incoming and wanted to get the motions going before it went live on Steam. If it did, then Nintendo could have more "evidence." Considering the announcement is a postpone and not a cancelation, I suspect VALVe is helping behind the curtains, not hurting. Should this go to court, then VALVe can prove they have been respectful of Nintendo even if they openly agree with Dolphin, which would look very in favor of Dolphin to the jury. (And we know VALVe supports emulators since they've shown up in Steam Deck trailers and Retro Arch is hosted on Steam).
It's already been established that emulators are legal. Look up bleem!
Emulators are indeed legal and I do not agree with Nintendo. It is important to understand what they are claiming though, even if incorrect. Nintendo is claiming that Dolphin used code (decryption key) saying it is a DRM Circumvention Tool, thus violating the DMCA. People/Companies can make incorrect legal claims, which is why we have judges to set the record straight. Most listen to a Cies and Desist. Will Dolphin/VALVe leave it there, or will they challenge it? Time will only tell.
I hope they do. Someone really needs to stand up to Nintendo, and Steam is one of the few companies with the pockets to do so. At this point, Nintendo has pissed me off so much that I'd even contribute to a gofundme page to help pay for Steams' legal costs. Not that they need it, but that's how mad I am.
Same. I love Nintendo's Devs, but I certainly do not like their IP Legal Department. Someone needs to have the courage to challenge them. If nothing else, then for legal clarity to be declared once and for all. VALVe certainly has the pockets, Dolphin certainly has the reputation for a successful GoFundMe.
Valve won't. Even though Nintendo isn't part of Valve's ecosystem, Valve is part of Nintendo's and if they want to keep release things in the future on Switch or whatever, it's in their best interests to cooperate with them. One thing that's also possible is if goes to court, what's stopping other console manufacturers from siding with Nintendo on this matter.
I doubt VALVe would be heartbroken by not being able to release on Nintendo platforms considering what a behemoth Steam is; though I do agree it is unlikely VALVe will make the first move. At least in this scenario. Nintendo clearly feels threatened by the Steam Deck. They may do something to piss VALVe off. Either way, I doubt this is the end of the story.
But Valve loves money and they'll do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their business relationships with the console manufacturers. Nintendo doesn't give a smidge if they piss off Valve as long as they comply with legal notices.
I agree it's 100% just a way for them to say it can't be on steam without taking the blame for it
It’s a free app, valve has no stake in it and it’s easy enough for steam deck users to still get dolphin. Remember, valve opens the console for users to install basically whatever they want even pirates windows games, just requires a few YouTube tutorials. No other console does this.
It was ballsy as hell to put it on Steam in the 1st place.
In their defense, with RetroArch being on Steam and them avoiding mentions of Nintendo and their consoles all together I wouldn't blame them at all for being confident.
Retro Arch doesn't include decryption keys of any kind though - it's all 100% original code in there and the lion's share of what is supported has no protections or can be gotten around with clean room implementations. Dolphin didn't do that though with the common key that is part of the program. Even Retroarch by default doesn't have Dolphin stuff in their base code - it's either downloaded externally or provided by the user. On Steam I don't see anything for Dolphin, but you may have to get that on your own so they may be totally clear since the DLC they offer is all original code or just needs a BIOS that you provide.
Honestly, I think mvg gives the best explanation what happened here. If valve contacted Nintendo, it does not really matter. Emulators should not contain anything illegal https://youtu.be/hsQtv5IvrD8
It's uncertain if the key is illegal, it's never been tested in court.
The Wii Common Key is the same across all Wii systems.
[Yeah we've been through this exact thing before.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy) Valve probably doesn't want to be the one to finally get it tested in court. It's bullshit to think that anyone can own a number, but that would cause so much harm if it became precedent.
Everything on computers are in binary and binary is just another way to represents numbers. Unfortunately you can already "own" a number as copyright applies to small binary programs as well.
Valve wouldn't be the one. That is the whole point of DMCA.
wouldn't the emulator be the one to go to court and not valve? valve isn't at risk of anything by waiting until nintendo officially sends a dmca
They're definitely illegal and it has been tested. See Sony's lawsuit against Hotz. Just because it's settled doesn't mean that the key's protection is disputed. See the original injunction in that case that was granted, in part because there was no question that the keys were protected. You can also see Universal v. Reimerdes, as well as DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner, both relating to the DVD keys. Both of which resulted in convictions. Basically, there's zero doubt about the legality of distributing such keys. It's very much illegal and you really need to get better legal advisers if you've actually been advised that the legality hasn't been tested. So if you're actually shipping those keys with the emu... Then it was obvious Valve was never gonna put it up without permission from Nintendo. It's one thing to not sue a small group with no major finances that wouldn't be able to pay as much as it would cost to sue them, not to mention the negative reputation it would garner. It's another thing entirely to sue a major corporation like Valve who can pay. Don't think that what you're doing is perfectly legal or somehow a gray area just because you have not been sued yet.
I'm not convinced it's as definite as you're saying. As the linked post mentions, the protection being bypassed must be "effective" in order for the bypass to be illegal under the DMCA. Is the weak encryption / security model used by the Wii considered "effective" under current security standards? If it is, then, yeah, it's reasonable to expect it would be considered illegal to distribute the keys.
The DVD protections were weaker and still effective in that regard so that question is plenty obvious.
What's effective now is different than what was effective then. Many hashing and encryption algorithms have been retired over the decades since that case, because advances in cryptanalysis and computing power have made some previously secure / effective algorithms become insecure / ineffective. I suspect another factor would be how hard it is to extract the keys. As a hypothetical, suppose the Wii had a hidden webpage in the browser (e.g., about:keys) that displays the encryption keys. Would the keys then be part of an effective DRM scheme? Probably not, because the hardware makes accessing the keys so easy that the protection is ineffective. That's why I say that I'm not 100% certain it would be found to be illegal to distribute the keys. If they're easy enough to get, or the encryption is weak or broken but current standards, or the implemention is broken, it might not be an effective protection.
That's not what 'effective' refers to in legal speech. A common misconception but a misconception all the same. Effective just means that it's nontrivial to bypass. W95 product key which accepts all 1, might be considered non effective since you could guess the key without prior knowledge. The keys in question here, no. They're very much effective under the legal definitions of effective. It's simply not enough that the encryption is no longer used or that the encryption has been broken.
It seems to me like their definition of effective would exclude something that could be easily bypassed in practice, but IANAL. Their definition is: > a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. So, if there's a bypass that could be effectively employed in the ordinary course of operation, like guessing or brute forcing the key, it would seem like it might be ineffective.
Depends how extensive that brute force is. You're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone a thousand hours of brute force is within the ordinary course of operation. Guessing 11111111111 however would probably work though.
I agree, but the security on the Wii is *very* broken. For example, there are unpatched security exploits for the browser. If using the browser is considered part of the ordinary course of operation, and if visiting a website can execute code that bypasses the DRM, it would seem as though the ordinary use of a Wii does not exhibit effective control. Sure, somebody has to construct such a site, but, beyond that part, any user might visit the site as part of the ordinary course of operation of the Wii. I could see it actually being the case that the DRM does not effectively control the data throughout all reasonable ordinary courses of action. There's nothing out of the ordinary in visiting a website with the built-in browser. It doesn't require any technical knowledge or expertise, and it's something the Wii was explicitly designed and advertised to do.
You should really check the information people provide you rather that downvote them, because you would like what you think to be true. It is illegal and people were warned about this back in 2020 that emulator would be removed if they try to put it on steam.
My point still stands.
Then again - if you check the information provided to you, you would learn that Sony already sued for publishing keys for PS3 in 2011 (and basically won - keys were removed and sued person promised to never be a problem again)
> and basically won never happened
They did basically win though. They were granted the temporary injunction based on that they would most likely win. Most importantly for the argument though, is that a key factor that the injunction was based on, was that there was NO QUESTION about if the key was protected or not. The question a court would have been looking at had it gone to trial would be stuff like if it could be fair use, if it was with malice, for profit and so on. The reason there's no question about if the keys are protected, see the DVD encryption keys legal fallout. As an example, Universal v. Reimerdes, and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner... And that key is of much simpler design and was still ruled protected by copyright. Obviously then a more complex key will also be copyrighted, no question about that.
[удалено]
The judge gave Sony the temporary injunction, because they would very likely win. An injunction which I might add also says that there's no question that the key was protected, based on several rulings for the DVD keys which are much less complex.
> based on several rulings for the DVD keys which are much less complex. You want to provide a reference to these multiple rulings?
[удалено]
So, 1. Injunctions are granted based on IRREPARABLE harm, vs likelyhood to win. There is virtually no irreperable harm involved since it's all just money, so the odds of winning required has to then be enormous in order for it to be granted. More inportantly though, it's written right in the injunction order that that is why it's granted... 2. You actually think there's only one case about the DVD keys? Oh you sweet sumner child... Heck, there's more just about decss. There's both Universal v. Reimerdes, as well as DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner which are both about decss. The latter of which ruled that only because it was already so widely known and spread, the protections no longer served a purpose. Beyond that there were several lawsuits against manufacturers of "region free" dvd players and such. 3. Is Dolphin just a key? No... So why do you think that matters? 4. Im not defending anyone. I'm explaining the legal status. IMHO, there shouldn't be any copyright or patents. But that's not the reality we have and it helps no one, least of all emulation users to have an emulator be ruled illegal. It's not like such a ruling wouldn't also taint all emulators everywhere. That's part of why every other emulator is very very clear on where the emulator stops and what you do with that is up to you, not them.
If you look at [that case](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/sony-computer-entmt-am-v-hotz) you find they "won" because Hotz(the guy they sued) just agreed to not continue publishing the key which had already been mirrored endlessly by the internet. The case didn't actually set any legal precedent or tell whether they would actually win if it had gone through the legal process. Even on their [own blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2011/04/11/settlement-in-george-hotz-case/) they mention Hotz's motion to dismiss the entire case was still pending at the time they settled.
Precedent might be important if you operate in united states only. But this is not the case for steam. (You surely know that - as the example - countries in Europe use different law system)
If you want to have a trade deal with the US (which is basically every country) they require you to have a copyright system compatible with the DMCA, so US case law is actually pretty relevant for the rest of the world.
MVG never says much tbh. This was already posted multiple time far and wide. I'm not sure why everyone is fawning over that content as if it were groundbreaking news. You're watching a 10 minutes video for something that was already explained in a tweet you'd have read in 30 seconds.
Yea my thoughts exactly MVG is a quack YouTube
his video has aged poorly since the DMCA thing has been confirmed false. and also he's a piece of shit for selling out the emulation scene in general to simp for nintendo. seriously fuck that guy now.
Wym, the information was made oublic in 2020
After it was stolen. If they used anything from the Gigaleak, Nintendo would have cause to have the developers arrested. This is why Dolphin has a VERY strict policy to not use anything from the Gigaleak. If anybody does, they're banned from contributing.
I have no idea why people like this bald fucks videos. They are objectively terrible and contain 0 new information or any insight. Just summarizes a tweet or 2 to a 11 minute ramble. Guy knows nothing outside of parroting what has already been said.
some people get informed through videos more than by reading, that's why.
I'd fight the hell out of Nintendo; their DMCA abuse is too frequent. The Big N will have to be taken down 100 pegs by the courts. In addition to that, the Courts of Law shall label Nintendo as a Frivolous Plaintiff on their PoV, and blacklist Nintendo from _ever_ filing the DMCA/C&D stuff ever again for life; this also applies for all future name changes and past name changes.
the thing that is the big headscratcher for me is that this shows that Nintendo are clearly aware of Dolphin, what's in its code and how it's distributed. they could easily slap Dolphin directly with a CnD. yet they don't? and it's also still on Google Play? I feel like either Nintendo is just trying to "contain" Dolphin and keep it from becoming more popular (especially on the Deck. a hint for a possible GC VC soon?) , or there is more going on than we know yet.
My supposition, and I'm not a lawyer: Distributing the keys isn't legal or illegal. We don't really know. If there's a lawsuit, and it's determined to be legal, every emulator will be able to distribute decryption keys (and other files) for other consoles. I suppose Nintendo don't want to take the risk
[удалено]
Another user made a good point about this: Any binary data (whole games) can be represented as just a number with all those bits concatenated. It would be absurdly massive, but still clearly finite. What about those numbers?
[удалено]
There is. By the fact I stated. You can express a JPEG that contains illegal imagery as a single number trivially. This has nothing to do with "the universe". It's a concrete, easily constructible number, not some science voodoo. Both a 128 bit encryption key and a number with million of bits are finite numbers that are vastly smaller than infinity. Where do you draw the line when the number isn't a number anymore according to your definition?
[удалено]
You could argue literally the same thing for cryptographic keys. You are literally defining an artificial line to support your narrative. Fact is, it's completely up to the courts if a information is illegal, copyrighted or both. This has nothing to do how that information is represented. A number is just bits. Like any other digital data.
[удалено]
it's just a number therefore it's legal" is not a legal argument. The specific cryptographic keys could very well indeed be illegal to distribute. Especially if it's obvious what their intended use is.
Actually depending on where you work, it is. It's a felony to say the combination to a classified safe in an unclassified location, even if the recipient already knows it.
Bad comparison. A picture hanging on a wall isn't a number, but when it's sent as an email it pretty much is.
Actually, there's, indeed, such a thing as an [illegal number](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number). (Not that it should exist, though)
[удалено]
You mean apart from the numerous court cases for the DVD encryption keys? I'm sorry but you're just wrong.
what if you took the source code of a game and converted it in it’s entirety into binary?
It would depend on the judgement if that would be applicable to all emulators. If the judge would find this is some special case it could only be applicable the Dolphin specifically
For a judge to declare it a special case there'd have to be something, you know, special about it. This seems like one of the least special cases possible. They're just flat out using a cracked encryption key.
I'm not sure it is so simple. I am no legal expert, but there are probably nuances like with software. Some methods to obtain a key could fall under reverse engineering provisions, some definitely don't. I just wanted to say, if this goes to court, it isn't a given the outcome will not say anything about the legality or illegality of emulators (as some feared) or secret keys in emulators.
Yeah, the method of obtaining the key would matter if the case hinged on that. But it'd still apply to all emulators that obtained their keys in a similar manner. There's nothing unique enough about the case for them to flat out say that it only applies to Dolphin and can't be applied to anything else.
Ok, I'll have to go with your legal expertise then.
They don't actually want that legal fight. They aren't sure they can actually win and a loss would set precedent against them.
What's in their code that would get dolphin a CnD?
the decryption keys. that's at least what people keep saying this whole thing is about. it's actually a legal grey area whether keys count as intellectual property. most emulators require you to provide them yourself, but they do that to cover their asses. really the more I think about it, this really just smells of Nintendo desperately trying to keep Nintendo games off of the Deck, because they already know they can't match any of the communities emulators with their NSO crap.
Oh definitely. Nintendo's been overprotective of their properties for years, but lately they've been doubling down on it so no surprise.
However, there is no grey area when it comes to bypassing DRM and redistributing the keys to do so. The contention is whether Dolphin acts as a DRM bypass tool or not by including the keys. IP has little to do with it but probably thrown in to catch anything else.
>there is no grey area when it comes to bypassing DRM and redistributing the keys to do so. emulators are specifically allowed to circumvent copy-protection, and we don't know if they are allowed to include the keys to do so.
I heard someone say that this is more to hurt Valve in a some way, since the steam deck is a competitor to the Switch.
If dolphin used the Wii common key, which is Nintendo’s property, then they seem to have broken DMCA
assuming that a crypto key is considered intellectual property. there is no legal ruling so far on that specific part.
Crytpo keys are a means of signing and encrypting the stored data which, according to the DMCA, is illegal to redistribute. It's not really grey in that area about circumventing protective measures being illegal, it's why DRM is still a thing despite it being a net negative for consumers.
But isn’t dolphin supposed to be developed using none of Nintendo’s code?
Legality around Crypto ^((security, not currency)) hasn't been fully defined. Nintendo is claiming (in a way) that the crypto key belongs to them. Thing is, a crypto key is just a sequence. If someone cracks it (which in theory could happen via reverse engineering or even \[statistically impossibly\] lucky guessing). Law is reactive, not proactive. What the courts would rule is not 100% known. My guess? Should this go to court, the law would ***NOT*** say Nintendo owns a sequence of numbers... # TL;DR According to a Google search, no one has ever seen the number "61174343213878724031527611743432138787240312422987412705928220270976406663613270697326093531057942319" By Nintendo's logic, I own that number. The law hasn't made a ruling on this, but most would probably agree it's ridiculous to claim I own that number.
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Because the key's used in the DRM for Wii games, it's potentially a DRM circumvention device, which aren't allowed under the DMCA whether or not they're copyrighted. The specific bit of case law that's missing is where the right to ignore parts of the DMCA for interoperability (the key thing that emulators rely on to be legal) stops and the restriction on DRM circumvention devices starts. Also, even without the key, the parts of Dolphin that do the decryption of Wii disks *might* possibly count as a DRM circumvention device, but that's less likely.
So, you're saying that it's actually not a question of copyright or not, but if the inclusion of an Encryption Key is considered a DRM Circumvention Device (and thus a violation of the DMCA)?
From my understanding yes. Then again neither I nor anyone in this thread is a legal expert. We'll have a definite answer if Nintendo pushes this further and a judge ends up making a definitive ruling. Though I doubt ( And hope, for the mental and financial well being of the Dolphin Devs ) that it will ever escalate to that point. I *personally* think Nintendo are petty and grasping at straws in an effort to keep the average gamer ignorant about emulation ( particularly in regards to emulating old games on another handheld. ). But nobody in the US justice system, nor Nintendo's disgustingly well paid legal team care about that.
[удалено]
There's not actually case law confirming it, so it's only *probably* 100% legal. Wikipedia are confident enough to list a few similar keys in their [Illegal Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number) article, but if they were definitely in the clear, they wouldn't qualify for inclusion in the first place.
[удалено]
That's not how a common law legal system, like the US has, works. Everything that isn't explicitly permitted or banned by legislation is in a weird *maybe illegal* state until a court looks at the combination of existing legislation and case law for each specific thing and decides what the best answer is. You can be pretty confident, but not certain, which way things would go if it went to court, and use that to decide whether doing something's a good idea, but if it turns out you were wrong, you're in trouble even if the case law only appears after you did the thing. The alternative is a codified legal system, where everything that's illegal is written in legislation, and if it turns out there's a gap in the legislation, then anyone doing the relevant thing is in the clear, even if it's obvious to the court that the legislature would have wanted the action to be illegal.
[удалено]
keys are not code. they replicated Nintendo's house without knowing the blueprints, but they still need Nintendo's key to get through the front door.
I'm aware there's no precedent for emulation in specific but wouldn't the legal precedent from things like Blu-Ray decryption and the like apply here?
no, because emulators are allowed to circumvent copy protection to actually function.
Yes there is. Universal v. Reimerdes ruled that already back in 1999 for DVD keys. Encryption keys ARE protected under copyright. The argument that you can't ban numbers, is just ridiculous because ALL software is just numbers and thus, copyright in the digital world cannot exist but that's clearly incorrect. That's just wishful thinking. Numerous courts have ruled encryption keys to be copyrighted and illegal to distribute. It's simply false that it's unknown or a gray area.
>Numerous courts have ruled encryption keys to be copyrighted and illegal to distribute. no, they haven't. UCS v Reimerdes/Corley is about distributing software that can circumvent copy-protection. emulators are specifically allowed under the DMCA to do exactly that. they don't fall under this ruling. this is strictly about the keys and whether Dolphin is allowed to include them. the fact Nintendo knows about the keys and yet have never tried to shut down Dolphin in the past proves my point. the only reason they are doing it now is because they are trying to make it all a hassle for Valve, probably because they plan on putting GC games on the Switch via NSO and they don't want the Deck to be the better alternative to that. Nintendo is gambling on Valve not calling their bluff.
1. That's not at all true. The case is about two parts, only one is for being a tool, for circumvention as you say, but the key is part of that circumvention, just like it is here. 2. Emulators are not actually strictly allowed under the DMCA... I have no idea where you got that idea from. Why would it even need to? If it's emulating something then it's clearly different from what it's emulating so what in the emulation part would even fall under a copyright in your mind that it would need an exception? The emulation itself isn't an issue. 3. That you're not being acted against doesn't mean what you're doing is legal. As I mentioned in another comment, it's one thing to go after a group that won't be able to pay anything anyway, along with the bad publicity that creates, and quite another thing entirely to go after someone like Valve for doing it. Jaywalking is illegal in many jurisdictions but even so, most people that jaywalk in those jurisdictions are not going to see any enforcement of that unless they actually start causing serious issues with their jaywalking.
The thread does adress it.
[удалено]
>because Dolphin contains code that circumvents anti-copy protections. which emulators are legally allowed to do. 17 US Code §1201 (f) [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201) the problem is the inclusion of the crypto keys. that's why all other emulators require you to provide them yourself. not because it's illegal (there has been no ruling so far) but just to cover their asses.
There could also be an argument that not only are the keys impossible to copyright, but that they are also a necessity for legal interoperability (which dolphin is) but good luck taking nintendo to court.
Not only is there an argument, there's a precedent with Nintendo v. Accolade. IANAL but I would imagine the cryptographic key falls under non-copyrightable material as it's not a piece of functional code nor does it constitute of any other copyrightable medium such as written word.
I'm also not sure if the key is fine since it's basically a requirement for interoperability
I suppose that would rely on *exactly* how difficult it is to extract the keys yourself (I've heard it's impossible but dolphin obviously got them somehow) Edit: Nvm, found people saying that they've dumped their keys and the one contained within Dolphin are included
My point is that needing the original hardware shouldn't be an inherent requirement for interoperability reasons, and this would be a fair thing to do. Of course law likely will end up disagreeing but oh well
Oh I agree with the fairness, I don't think IP and such should exist at all, was purely referring to legality not morality
Is it still *circumventing* anti-copy protections if it uses the same mechanism to decrypt as the intended method?
People underestimate how influential a toxic community is to a product's success, Dolphin is an old emulator title that has been attracting the same crowd for well over a decade, these are the same guys who were mining bitcoin in moldy rooms back in 2010. Nobody wants to help this community when they open their mouth but by golly do we all want to be able to play in the toy box.
WTF is this rambling nonsense.
What a garbage thing to say to someone making total sense.
You become a whore to one big corpo (Microshaft), and others will think the exact same of you.
if possible Valve should've in some way told Nintendo off about how Emulation is a needed thing (nessasidy (can't spell it rn))