What was stolen? We have a binary from which we can infer source code. But we do not posses the original source code. Why should it be illegal? You still need the game's assets.
With PDF the better analogy would be producing LaTeX file(s) that correspond to that PDF, without owning the original LaTeX file(s).
Why do you believe that binaries have different rights to any other creative work? Given that object code can be protected under copyright and substantial similarity is the threshold for copyright claims what makes you think that this is legal?
To my knowledge reverse engineering is legal (depends on jurisdiction of course). As is emulation. Which means there should be no legal issues with getting the source code of a binary executable, and then modifying it to work on another system.
A bit tangential, but you can also try to look at this logically. The number of instructions in the binary is limited. So the probability to get "substantially similar" binaries is higher than, say, with a book (for the same architecture of course). Plus as I mentioned, the videogame is not just a binary, it's also some assets with which the binary works. And we are not touching the assets since they are mostly independent of the architecture.
This is not correct. Some types of reverse engineering are legal.
> As is emulation. Which means there should be no legal issues with getting the source code of a binary executable, and then modifying it to work on another system.
These are actually two of the exceptions. You CAN reverse engineer it to make it operative but that doesn't mean you can distribute the re-engineered binary.
They could have released a patching mechanism that used the original binary, but just releasing the re-engineered binary is illegal.
I can't find anything specific about how similar new binary should be to be to not get into trouble. For now it's probably case by case. You are correct that you can't legally redistribute unmodified binary.
I can only judge from the cases I know about regarding videogames. The two instances where publishers decided to intervene via a cease and desist letter or DMCA takedown: fan-made Metroid 2 remake (AM2R) and reverse engineering of GTA 3/Vice City/San Andreas. Both Nintendo and Take-Two were making their own remakes of those games at the time, so they probably saw it as a threat to their profits.
But a lot of decompilations and ports have been made without any intervention from the publishers (at least from my knowledge). Diablo 1 has both a decompilation (code and exe) and a port. N64's Zeldas also have both, which is interesting since Nintendo is known for issuing DMCAs, and they also have a remake of Ocarina of Time currently in the works, so there should be enough reason to take down such projects (like they did with Metroid 2). I assume they are not doing anything because it's just the binary being distributed.
Looking at the results page, it looks like it was disqualified. If you win something but then are disqualified, then by definition you did not win.
Here’s an easy to understand analogy; if you deposit a fake check for a million dollars, your account will briefly show a million dollars, but then the check bounces, and your balance goes back to what it was before because you were in fact never a millionaire.
Your employer has fundamentally undermined the stable functioning of society by systematically provoking outrage, division and hate. You have contributed to a world where we can’t even agree if measles is bad.
You can disable this in about:config by modifying extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains. It's probably there to help prevent malicious extensions from hijacking official browser support. I reckon many people here don't need it.
You are choosing a really bad example to make your point. Not letting extensions operate on the actual site where you install the extensions isn't being "comically evil" by any means.
This has always been the case for years, for every browser. No idea why you say "now".
Any browser providing extensions, not just Firefox, will at least won't allow extensions to modify their own extensions providing page. Otherwise, any malicious extension can infiltrate and trick users to download modified extensions from the browser's own extension page.
My kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.
Why can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you.
Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a condition for their child to receive an education.
For an extra solid case, insist that you have a sincere, deeply-held conviction against the use of these devices and any attempt to force their use or deny your child the right to an education due to your refusal is a violation of the First Amendment.
Why do parents just surrender and do whatever school admins want?
These are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.
Then refuse on First Amendment grounds. Your child has a right to an education and if you truly, sincerely believe those devices must not be used, the school must offer an accommodation.
It's really difficult to sympathize with your perspective here.
>>> Ban smartphones for kids.
>>> But the school gives my kids homework on them.
>> Then tell the school you and your kid won't use them; they still have to educate your kid.
> But I want my kid to use them. I just don't like what they allow my kid to do.
If they allow your kids to do things you don't want your kids doing, then don't let your kids use them! That's parenting 101.
It's very frustrating how many parents want to Nerf the world and destroy freedom and privacy, all so they can offload some of the essential duties of parenting to the state. Usually this is combined with a heaping helping of learned helplessness and lemming-like groupthink.
"But everyone is using smartphones; I couldn't deprive little Timmy! And it's modestly inconvenient to be a stick in the mud! Lawmakers, help! I demand that everyone has to do a face scan to authenticate every TCP packet--just think of my children!"
Why can we make laws to require intrusive age attestation/verification everywhere but we can’t make laws to end the use of school iPads? One of these seems easier to do?
Frankly I’d rather end the use of iPads and Chromebooks in schools (except perhaps in special technology classes), especially given the increasing use of AI to cheat on assignments.
We didn’t have computers in class and it didn’t stop me or my peers from learning how to use them. And it didn’t infringe on freedom of speech or compromise individual privacy, as this proposed law would.
reply