Nintendo Emulator passes MS Certification. Will release on Xbone soon

twitter.com/nesboxcom/status/774139977529647104

SO WE TOLD MICROSOFT TO CERTIFY SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE NINTENDO'S LAWYERS FROTH IN RAGE.

AND THEY DID IT.

THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/Sony_v_Bleem.htm
copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/sonycomputer-bleem-9thcir2000.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=itCQCU4ws0M
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's not only a Nintendo thing.

What about all the 3rd party companies trying to sell their own catalog?

Emulators are completely legal and if they dont use BIOS files, use code that doesnt rely on anything Nintendo has created.

Hurr fucking durr.

but the software is still copyrighted

>use code that doesnt rely on anything Nintendo has created.
that screenshot alone is illegal since all the graphics in the thumbs were obtained without any of the devs consent. The names themselves are trademarked. They literally can't use "NES emulator" because they can't use "NES" to describe their product to begin with

Xbone isnt providing the games.
Im sure you provide those yourself.

That's on the end user, not the developer

>that screenshot alone is illegal since all the graphics in the thumbs were obtained without any of the devs consent
Nope. Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem! Inc.

Out of curiosity, I have entered a ticket with the consumer support center. I want to see how they defend this, since they recently went on record to state that emulators steal their IP.

You are an idiot. They even aknowledge 9 of those games aren't public domain. They can't win that one.

>Getting dominated by Sony this gen
>Decide the best course of action is to allow an emulator on your console, pissing off Capcom, Sega, Square-Enix and more third party developers that rely on the resale of old games to generate money.

This is the best thing they could have done. Honest.

You think Microsoft wants bad relationships with 3rd party?

Who is going to pay for Megaman Legacy Collection when you can have the originals running for free?

Better having Capcom on your side than a emulator creator

Perhaps you should actually read what that legal precedent is friend

>Legacy Collection-mind

>when you can have the originals running for free?
And running better to boot.

>Decide to look it up on wikipedia

>Copy protection

>To combat redistribution of the small downloadable emulator, the user had to buy the Bleem!-CD. A CD containing about 35 MB with a DirectX distributable and the actual version of Bleem! available at the time of the CD's printing. The rest of the CD was only for copy protection and was impossible to copy with conventional means; however the copy protection was cracked nevertheless within two weeks of the release.

>Further updates to the emulator were free, until the company ceased operation several years later.

>Sony lawsuit

>Two days after Bleem! started taking preorders for their emulator, Sony filed suit against them alleging that they were violating their rights and that providing access for PlayStation games to run on non-Sony hardware constituted unfair competition.

>Ultimately Bleem! won in court and a protective order was issued to "protect David from Goliath". Sony lost on all counts, including Bleem!'s use of screenshots of PlayStation games on its packaging. The court noted that Bleem!'s use of copyrighted screenshots was considered fair use and should be allowed to continue.

>Despite the legal victories, the legal fees allegedly forced the company out of business. eBay auctions of some of the company's possessions were held soon after - including a huge library of worldwide game releases apparently used for compatibility testing.

I don't get it. Why did Sony lose? The hell does "protect david from goliath" mean? Does it mean that if a lawsuit would bankrupt you, but not the other company, you can get away with it?

>I don't get it. Why did Sony lose?
Because nothing they were doing was illegal, dummy.

MS has already given Capcom a truckload of money for timed exclusivity on the newer dead rising games, Square got that Tomb Raider deal. And Sega is being paid because one of their developers, Creative Assembly, is making Halo Wars 2.

They aren't going to give a shit about a bunch of roms when MS is paying them bigger money elsewhere

those publishers only make a difference to the japanese audience
Xbone can go far if M$ manage to secure better deals with Bethesda and the like

But its software that lets you play playstation games, without playstation hardware. How is that not illegal?

>The hell does "protect david from goliath" mean? Does it mean that if a lawsuit would bankrupt you, but not the other company, you can get away with it?
no
>In other matters before the Court, Sony's internal Legal and Business Affairs officers attempted to modify an existing protective order and gain access to Bleem's most confidential business data. The information in question includes detailed reseller information, source code for the bleem! software, identities of bleem! customers, and information relating to negotiations with third-party software and hardware companies.
>"What we have here is a pretty transparent attempt by Sony to intimidate the retailers into pulling bleem! from their shelves," said Jon Hangartner, lead attorney for Bleem. "Even if Sony's subpoenas weren't invalid on their face, the information they request is irrelevant to the lawsuit. These subpoenas have nothing to do with potential damages; they only serve to scare bleem!'s vendors into thinking they might be Sony's next target."

>They literally can't use "NES emulator" because they can't use "NES" to describe their product to begin with
You are retarded

Knife lets you kill people, how are kitchen knives not illegal?

So basically "You tried to bully them, so nothing they do is now considered a sin."

The "I may have killed a puppy, but you are hitler" defense? I didn't know a company could completely invalidate anything they did or wanted if they tried to steal information. That's some judge judy shit if I ever saw it.

It doesn't use anybody else's work, it's made completely from the ground up. If you quashed something that's made from the ground up simply because it does the same thing as something else, then you're enforcing a monopoly.

you can't copyright the general idea of a thing that allows you to do a thing

Because when it comes to software, there is a billion different ways to write something that ends up at the same solution. You can't copyright that end solution.
This is the crux of why writing emulators are legal, since all you are doing is writing a piece of software that does the same thing the console itself does, but without copying the same code the console has within it.

You could literally write SMB from scratch and that would be legal. It wouldn't be legal for you to use assets and stuff from SMB, but writing code that provided the same output is legal.

You aren't very good at reading. It was to prevent them from Son'y continued (and, in hindsight, 100% successful) corporate sabotage to strongarm them out of the retail space.

Wat. What the fuck kind of retort is that? A knife has many uses, a emulator literally only exists to play video games. Wait, so the logic is "it's purpose is just to play video games, its not hurting anyone"? Except they literally advertise playstation games. Imagine walking into gamestop, and there's this big poster in the window advertising a Xbox One emulator with pictures of all the Xbox One games on it. So you are saying, that NOBODY would be able to do anything about it? That it would be completely legal? That makes no sense.

It seems like you're simply arguing backwards from the conclusion that emulators should be illegal. Why doesn't it make sense? Justify this position. Is it simply because you shouldn't be allowed to compete with somebody?

>Sup Forums genuinely believes emulators are illegal

wipe this board from the face of the earth

OH, ok. So the logic is, as long as it's made from your own resources, its completely legal. EVEN if it ends up being a clone of something already made, its ok, its "just a coinscidence"? So if someone programmed, from the ground up, only with their own resources, SMB1, and it looked the same, played the same, EVERYTHINIG the same, its legal?

That's just dumb.

So you're saying that it should be illegal because they're attempting to make a competing product?

Yeah you're right man, once one way of accomplishing a task has been invented, all other ways should be illegal, even if they are objectively easier / more efficient / producing better results

Sorry, but free things do not compete with non-free things. Competition only exists if sales are to be made. I never really thought emulators are illegal, since they just play games. I thought using any IP's from copyrighted games is illegal though. But apparently, if you make a game with your own resources, and it ends up a exact clone of a known IP, its completely legal? I don't understand that part.

Obviously if they redrew mario sprites and called it super mario brothers that would be copyright infringement, but the code would be completely legal.

Why is that dumb again?

That's pretty hilarious.

I'm curious if it'll spur development of xbox/360 emulators finally though. I can imagine a bunch of assrecked nintentoddlers getting on that train in the name of "THEY DID IT TO US, WE DO IT TO THEM" or something.

>Nintendo tries to sue MS
>fails because MS is much more powerful than them
>Nintendo goes bankrupt as a result

No, because its the same. Not because its similar. Not because its trying to compete. Because its literally the exact same thing.
Talking about the product ending up specifically the same. Aren't game IP's protected from being cloned? And I don't mean "similar but different", I mean literally cloned, as in the exact same game.

>here's a link to a legal case that supports my point
>ur an idiot

Sup Forums ladies and gentlemen.

So some random nobodies just manage to make and certify an emulator on a console with zero hiccups whatsoever.

It's bullshit and I don't believe it

So are SNES and N64 and Gameboy emulators going to come next?

If somebody designs a Wii U emulator for the Xbone, does the buck stop there?

>Obviously if they redrew mario sprites and called it super mario brothers that would be copyright infringement,

No, that's what happened in that case, and apparently the courts said it was alright. So that's not illegal.

>Because its literally the exact same thing.
What's the same about Bleem? It's not using anything made by Sony.

>Talking about the product ending up specifically the same.
No you weren't. You were saying emulators should be illegal because they allow you to play games and consoles also allow you to play games. Quit moving the goalposts.

Its a real link dude, and it is really happening. A NES emulator on the Windows Store, for Xbox One.

Bleemcast!

...

It's a matter of context of the screenshots.
>We conclude that Bleem's use of the screen shots constitutes comparative advertising.
This was because Bleem advertising used screenshots as displayed via the console and also via the emulator. You would have to argue that it's clearly being used in such a sense with this emulator's shot, for which it is not clear.

No, that isn't what happened.

NESBox already does SNES, GB, GBA and Genesis as well.

The real fun is when someone ports Retroarch to it and gets it verified.

>Virgin Islands
never gets old

See, I wanted something like this, but just a launcher, not a specific emulator. I have this thing called RetroArch and this other thing called a terrible fuck ugly UI. And I have to download LaunchBox which is paid software if I want anything more than a weird window.

This though, this is good, I like it. I like having something like this since I use Windows 10 anyways.

Suppose Cemu publishes a Wii U emulator on the Xbox One. They sell it for $20, and a big chunk goes directly to Microsoft. You can insert real Wii U discs in an Xbox, and play them without buying a Nintendo console.

Do you still think Nintendo would be okay with it? Legal or not?

I think you misunderstand user. I'm not arguing a side, or arguing for a company, or anything like that. I'm just a idiot. A idiot that doesn't understand is all. That case didn't bug me at first, but then it said that advertisements that were literally advertising playstation games wasn't illegal, and that confused me. I didn't get how basically saying that you are using Sony's IP's, for free, apparently because they were made from scratch even though they are the same games. Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.
I mean the games, not the emulator. They had a ad that showed them being able to play playstation games, yet the courts said that was ok. I just don't get why.

Makes sense you're in the Virgin Islands

You silly anons, copyright laws are only valid if someone is copying something FROM america. Other countries have no rights. And subsidiaries like Nintendo of America will never win on court against a company born in the US.

I would like to be joking, but american copiright law (that some other countries insist to follow) is the unfaierst thing ever.

>Resident Evil
>Dead Rising
>Devil May Cry
>Mega Man
>Street Fighter
>Final Fantasy
>Deus Ex
>Hitman
>Kingdom Hearts
>Sonic

>only make a difference to the Japanese audience

They weren't advertising the games. They were advertising their product's ability to play the games, which you would know if you actually looked into the case instead of just reading a wikipedia article.

Then what did happen with the ads? The ads didn't show exact copies of the games?

>Cemu
>Legal or not?
Illegal. Almost certainly. You don't get this far along this early without directly copying from nintendo.

>Xbox gets the whole NES like Brady for free
>Nintendo fans have to pay 80 dollars for 20 titles

LMAO

law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/Sony_v_Bleem.htm

That's different.

How fucking stupid are you?

Screenshots do not equal recreating assets for the purpose of selling a game as your own.

OHHHHH. OH I get it now. Wow, I really am a moron, I didn't even think of that. No wonder Sony got so butthurt, they basically showed off that they were going to let people play Sony's games, and did it in a way that you can't call them on it. That's actually pretty funny. So then the NESbox is completely legal. Holy shit.

I'd listen to you if your spelling wasn't so egregious.

Or else it's a repeat of Dolphin and its Wii emulation where the architecture was so similar and the components were largely the same as the Gamecube that it was trivial to get it playable that quickly.

Cemu can barely emulate Mario Maker at fullspeed on even the top PCs at this point, no the xbone will not run it.

xbox users have to pay a monthly fee on top of purchasing a more expensive console plus the cost (and downsides) of a paid, closed-source emulator

nintendo users have had it for free for ~9 months with just the purchase of a 3ds

Assuming they built the emulator themselves from the ground up (which as the other user said is pretty unlikely) it would be perfectly legal. I'm sure that wouldn't stop Nintendo from suing out of spite though.

Great, now the xbone will have actual games to play!

It's called a legal precedent.

Emulators are completely different results from the original hardware, given the fact the original hardware well use the original hardware to do so.
Now what protects SMB1 is not the code itself or patents but the character registering etc..
If you made a game IDENTICAL to mario, but used different characters and code, no fucks would be given by the court.

it is not, the hardware is too different

Why is this allowed?

Why can Microsoft do this, Microsoft and Sony charge for online play, but I can't organize my PS4 home icons to move the non-game shit out of the way?

How is this bullshit fair?

>The court noted that Bleem!'s use of copyrighted screenshots was considered fair use and should be allowed to continue.
What pisses me off about this wiki entry is that it did not say why the judges actually decided that, so we have people just assuming things in this thread. I'm not spoonfeeding an analysis either, but I'll tell nearly everybody here that you're wrong preemptively. Goodnight.

So this means I can play NX games on my Xbone, right?

its the very reason you are even typing this stupidity. IBM PC Clone mutha fukka

Why would an NES emulator piss off Sega?
Am I missing something here?

>consoletard trying to brag about something PC had for almost 20 years

First that it would run like absolute dogshit because the microsoft store use C# instead of a real men's language that allows dynamic recompilation, so no WiiU running over 2 FPS to you.
Secondly all the GNU stuff in would demand that they publish the source code of the emulator, and they can't do that if it uses proprietary microsoft apis.

Lastly, NO BIOS OF ANY KIND ALLOWED.
But yeah.

Congrats on being able to play games that everyone played 20 years ago.

>The hell does "protect david from goliath" mean
its very complex

copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/sonycomputer-bleem-9thcir2000.pdf
law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/Sony_v_Bleem.htm

>The hell does "protect david from goliath" mean?
It means Sony is a monster that the world would be better without.

You wouldn't have to. The actual decision and reasoning were already posted in

Explain Decaf then

youtube.com/watch?v=itCQCU4ws0M

I really hope someone tries to pull this shit. Put Mario 3D World or something on the PS4 and just say that it was purely coincidence

>Try genesis rom on it
>Doesn't support .md
>Oh well let's rename it
>Sound completely borked

Goodnight. I've already read those cases a long fucking time ago for a class. When you can provide an a good analysis, wake me up. Otherwise I'm hitting the snooze button.

The only good thing MS would have done.

Why would you need an analysis? Shit's easy to understand, and it's all laid out clear as day.

Are you illiterate or something, and having someone else transcribe your posts for you?

No one cares faggot

Why are Nintendrones so butthuet about this?

>nes emulators first
>then snes
>genesis
>gameboy
>n64

Admit it, you'd go out and buy the xbone and 4 controllers for a nice emulator machine.

CENSOR THIS!!!!!

So are you trying to say that this precedent alone justifies the use of screeshots in the OP pic? Not really. I hope that's not what you meant. If not, then good. I mean, I can't tell which user is which, I'm not a mindreader. Goodnight.

Because xbots shouldn't be allowed to play anything but Fifa and CoD.

But I already have one and I'm sitting at it right now.

Except you already have that with a fucking Wii

What's required is proper ps1 emulation as well.