this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
454 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60516 readers
4346 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 7 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

They set the stage that they never said otherwise, but circumventing piracy protections is somehow illegal…

Now the question arises, what counts as piracy protection? Is a nag enough? Can you be criminalised in clicking away a nag you dis not read?

πŸ€”

[–] myplacedk@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Here in Denmark, it's legal to circumvent piracy protection, if the purpose is to legally use the product.

The example that was used in the media when this was new, is when you buy a DVD and want to play it on a PC instead of a DVD player. Usually piracy protection would stop it from working on a PC. Of course the circumvention also makes it easy to make and distribute a pirate copy.

So the ability to use the product in the way the customer choose (within reason), is weighted higher than stopping piracy a little.

[–] DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That should include ripping games and emulating them on PC as well?

[–] myplacedk@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I believe it does.

[–] Naia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago

Subverting copy protection had always been a vuage notion because they sell you encrypted content, but they still have to sell you something with the decryption keys as well.

Now, using the key to remove the encryption falls under "subverting" but if you use the key to play the encrypted media directly, why does it matter what hardware it is happening on?

When it came to switch emulation you didn't really circumvent the copy protection, you exported the keys from a switch. The game images are basically dumped as is.

Yes, you could find the keys elsewhere, but if you dumped your own it wouldn't really be considered subverting. Especially with the jig you put the switch into a state built into the switch hardware. It's not even a exploit like jailbreak usually are. The recovery boot mode is an intended service feature.

The only illegal thing would be getting copies of games and keys from other people.

[–] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Piracy protection is things like encryption, firmware checks, pairing systems, unique game identifiers per instance of game, unique console id's, ... Basically any system put in place to make, or identify, a game/console to be genuine or make sure a genuine game running on genuine hardware and nothing else.
These are all systems the switch had btw.
Switch emulation bypassed or faked all of those, which counts as piracy protection circumvention.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago

At least in the DMCA I believe