Comment on Super Game Boy Plus: Ultimate Super Game Boy Upgrade with Enhanced Features
turkalino@lemmy.yachts 1 month ago
Someone help me understand the feature to lock a game to the cartridge - does this mean it copies the game data into the SNES cartridge so you don’t need the GameBoy cart anymore? If so, this could give Nintendo’s lawyers enough power to shut this project down, which would be very sad
No, it doesn’t copy the game data in the way you’re describing, anymore than a Game Genie would (it doesn’t either).
And anyway, this Nintendo lawyer fear is getting a little ridiculous in this community. ROM dumping for this kind of data is legal, at least in the United States.
Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Is it illegal to rip a game that you own onto a device that you own? My understanding is that’s 100% legal, not gray area at all. The only issue would be if you distributed it.
xyzzy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Your understanding is incorrect if copying involves circumventing encryption or other means of protecting the data. That said, it’s not an issue for the Super NES.
Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 month ago
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Well that’s interesting. It does say the law won’t override fair use. But I assume it blocks it regardless.
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 month ago
These games were not stored with encryption, don’t you worry
turkalino@lemmy.yachts 1 month ago
That’s what I’m getting at, Nintendo only needs the argument “this could be used to rip a game onto the cartridge, then distribute it” and US courts will bend over and grant them the DMCA strike
v1605@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This argument would outlaw a USB flash drive, “Your Honor, this device can store the contents of this 30 old game, it needs to be outlawed to protect all intellectual property”
Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So you’re saying, because it would rip straight to another cartridge, it could be argued it’s streamlining distribution?
I would hope that a court would see through that argument. There’s a pretty good track record of allowing personal use of personal property. But I wouldn’t be surprised either if they convinced a court that this was explicitly for distribution purposes.