And Elon Musk was “legally in the clear” to sue a trade group into non-existence over the idea that companies deciding to boycott his site independently was collusion.

I am objecting loudly and powerfully to “legally in the clear” being equated with “acceptable” or “within the spirit of the law.”

Make no mistake. As far as we know, this is only legally in the clear because the developers are unable to fight it. That does NOT make Nintendo’s action correct. By LAW the developers are in the right, they simply cannot afford to defend themselves. If your claim is that it is technically legal to threaten to sue anybody you want, you are correct and also terrifyingly shortsighted. Inability of someone to defend their rights for financial reasons is an miscarriage of justice. Given the options of smugly pointing out the technical situation or ranting about the injustice, I’ll take the latter.

Let’s put it another way… You’re absolutely right. Nintendo is LEGALLY in the right to bully someone into submission using the threat of a lawsuit they cannot afford with overwhelming money. The legal system can’t touch them.

But that means the ONLY place where Nintendo will EVER face ANY kind of consequences is in the court of public opinion, so why on EARTH would your take on the situation be, “Oh well… nothing we can do.” It’s not much, but it’s the ONLY lever you have, and to relinquish it is inconceivable as a strategy.

This is a fair point. I just get so sick of seeing the constant erosion of individual rights in the technology space due to apathy and under reactions, and it’s a more or less constant, ongoing slide to the point where moments like this become absolutely infuriating.

Perhaps. But I see a lot of hand rubbing and “oh welling” from people when this is a legitimate moment for anger at the precedence this sets. I understand the urge to make it make sense, but the fact is people either tacitly accepting this activity as reasonable or arguing about the red herring of whether the source code is still available to sit and rot with nobody touching it but shady scam artists, not only moves the bar on what what Nintendo and other companies see they can get away with, it has a chilling effect on future preservation efforts among the constantly shrinking pool of people skilled enough in low level development to do this kind of work.

I guess my point is, I’m seeing very few voices that are sufficiently concerned or angry enough about this event considering the far reaching consequences it’s going to have.

We shouldn’t in ANY way be normalizing this activity, and our reaction shouldn’t be “Of COURSE they did this.” Although I guess I shouldn’t be surprised after we just watched Boeing murder a half dozen of its whistleblowers and the most people did was make a few memes. We’re living in a literal dystopia, apparently.

You’re incorrect. Creating an emulator is not illegal. Nintendo has the legal right to threaten to sue someone, but if you are threatening to sue for something that is not a crime, and you know that, and you do it anyway in the hopes of bankrupting them before the case settles, that’s not a legal proceeding, it’s extortion. I can threaten to sue you for cooking pancakes in your house, and while it’s technically ALLOWED for me to do that, it’s clearly and obviously not a case I would win, but if the threat of making your life hell is prominent enough, you might get forced into backing down, which is exactly what’s happening here.

They would absolutely NOT lose in court for creating an emulator. I cannot stress enough exactly how legal emulation is. It’s as legal as making your pancakes. The only way they would lose in court is if there is some EXTRA thing they’ve done that we don’t know about. If all they’ve done is create and distribute Ryujinx, there is absolutely NO way Nintendo would win a case in the US. This is settled law, and saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so, although it DOES embolden companies to bullshit developers with more bogus threats in the future.

They aren’t working within any rights. Emulator production is a legal right that Nintendo has neither the ability to bestow nor deny. It’s the founding legal rationale behind virtualization as a technology. This is the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to shut up - the forced relinquishing of your rights through threat of force, and it’s a little frightening to watch people suggest otherwise. This has played out in court and is settled law. Bleem! went BANKRUPT to secure a legal victory against SONY and establish that emulators are completely legal and there is no “gray area” about them, and you should be in less of a hurry to throw legal rights away because “Well, Nintendo said so…”

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe I didn’t grasp what you said, but reading your reply it seems like I grasped it fine.

Here’s the thing. People use emulators for piracy. That is also COMPLETELY and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The right to developing emulators is well-established, and game preservation isn’t even the most important consequence. The right to developing emulators is what allows virtualization that forms the backbone of server architecture, as well as running legacy code from old architectures on modern hardware, alleviating the need for thousands of man hours in rewriting tried and tested code. 20 years in the future, when the IoTs stupidity litters millions of homes with inaccessible, useless plastic garbage, emulation of no longer supported control units will be a panacea.

Nintendo is totally free to not like the law, but it is the law, and this pressure to shut down these projects is a flagrant violation of the developers’ legal rights, which regardless of the morality of piracy is a disgusting flouting of the legal system.

People use guns to murder, yes. But whether you or I think it’s correct or not, the law does not hold gun makers liable for the things their users do with them. We can’t just DECIDE that there are exceptions to the law and begin prosecuting or acting as if they are liable. That requires either a new law or an interpretation by a court to set a precedent - not lawyers sending a cease and desist to Smith & Wesson. That is a slippery slope to an absolutely nightmarish dystopia.

There is no justifying this in a “Well, I can see why they did it…” sense any more than in a murder case. The law is clear. The established rights of the developers are clear. The right to make a Switch emulator is NOT Nintendo’s right to give or deny like a trademark dispute or the ability to make a fan game. They don’t GET a say. The right to make an emulator is explicitly YOURS by LAW. And a giant corporation has taken their money and used it to violate established rights with threat of bankruptcy in violation of that established law. If you believe in the rule of law, no matter what you think of piracy, that should be utterly haunting.

I can’t blame them for taking down that kind of software development.

Your not being able to blame them is completely irrelevant. Nintendo can not like stuff all it wants. The question is if it is LEGAL. If it is, and it is, your defense of their actions is a defense of the argument that they should be above the law because they don’t like something, and that’s an absolutely TERRIBLE position to take. You don’t need to white knight for Nintendo. They have more money than God and taking up their fights for them against your own rights as a consumer is so far beyond Stockholm Syndrome that I don’t think we even have a word for it yet.

And because these are never finished projects. People can rant and rave about cloning the git all day, but without active, knowledgeable developers with the knowledge of the original dev team, these projects are dead. It’s not about using the emulators as they exist today… it’s about continuing to keep them working going forward. Anything that releases in the last year or two of the Switch’s life is now at risk of being lost forever into Nintendo’s archives.

LITERALLY Kefka.

Obligatory XKCD

Make no mistake… those people are clowns too.

Release date for the release date is about to drop.

No, the OSI model is fine.

I’m talking more about sandboxing an interpreted app that runs a container that runs another sandboxed interpreted app, both running their own instances of their interpreter with their own dependencies and accessible through a web interface that is accessible through yet another container running a web server that is running in Python with a virtual environment despite being the only Python app on the container, which is then connected to from another sandboxed tab on a sandboxed browser on your machine.

But hey, at least it isn’t, god forbid, a MONOLITH. That would require someone to take the time to understand how the application works.

Their UX and UI are their bread and butter, but as someone who has done extensive web app development for use on Safari browsers, if I had a nickel for every time their browser just IGNORED a standard, broke one that previously worked, or added new “features” that broke a standard, passing the responsibility of building a workaround down to individual developers… I’d have a few dollars anyway. I don’t have much faith their code is all that good compared to average under the hood and the UI, and I think their reputation unjustly leads users to turn a blind eye or give them a pass when their stuff DOESN’T work or works BADLY. “They’re Apple… everyone else seems happy. I must be doing something wrong.”

It doesn’t help that every new generation adds a new blackbox abstraction layer with little to no end-user benefit, the possibility of duplicated functionality and poor implementation, security concerns, poor support, and requiring a flashy new CPU with system crashing speed tricks to maintain a responsive environment through 12 levels of interpreters.

Yes! Containerize, containerize, containerize until every perfectly good machine built before 2020 is rotting away in a landfill!

They don’t. But if they already have it in for someone, which the Democrats in Congress almost certainly do right now, public opinion can give them a cover to act.

It’s certainly not for our benefit, but if one group of shitlords wants to take another shitlord down a few pegs, I’m certainly going to enjoy the show.

YOU might not. But I’m sure the politicians and bureaucrats who determine whether Musk’s businesses continue getting billions in taxpayer funded subsidies would sure like to know if the public is behind continuing to do that. I for one would consider it a bonus if say, the Democrats won control in November, looked at the numbers and decided none of their supporters are behind Musk, determined he’s been playing fast and loose using taxpayer dollars to fund pushing his own political agenda, and turned off the free ride.

Yeah, it sounds like the kind of thing you could do but would pay out the butt for as a private service. Road map books and asking directions were my go-to.

Of course, post-internet but pre-GPS there was always mapquest.

To be fair, I think people looked at the folks who were into mermaids as outlandish too. “Been around for a long time” doesn’t mean the same thing as “totally accepted socially”.