NDS4iOS Nintendo DS Emulator Now Available to Download

[Renzatic]

This emulator is likely illegal. Not only does it apparently contain Nintendo firmware, but it also has no significant non-infringing use.

If it includes the firmware packed in, then yeah, it's illegal as all get out. That's Nintendo's IP, and you can't distribute it without breaking a ton of copyright laws in the process.

But if you use a BIOS ripped from your own Nintendo DS, and the games you run on it are, like Menneisyys stated above, ripped directly from your own legally bought cartridges, then it's entirely legit.

The fact that most people won't do this doesn't change the fact that the program itself is legal. How someone chooses to use it doesn't effect the status of its legality as a standalone piece of code.

 

[BaldiMac]

Surely there are cartridge readers for Nintendo cartridges as well. And - as we've discussed above - if you dump your own cartridges, you can rightfully, legally play them in emulators.

Which ignores the part about Nintendo firmware and invents a theoretical scenario instead of addressing the legal requirements of significant non-infringing use.

----------

The fact that most people won't do this doesn't change the fact that the program itself is legal. How someone chooses to use it doesn't effect the status of its legality as a standalone piece of code.

Sure it does. The Betamax case established that to avoid contributory infringement the product must have significant non-infringing use. Which does not mean "some people might possibly use it legally".

 

[Menneisyys2]

Which ignores the part about Nintendo firmware and invents a theoretical scenario instead of addressing the legal requirements of significant non-infringing use.

A BIOS-less emulator is perfectly legal and it's not up to Apple to make sure their users use legal means to obtain BIOS and cartridge images.

Interestingly, Microsoft isn't interested in this "legality" stuff. They do let all kinds of emulators in their app store. So do Google. How strange... oh yes, surely it's not Apple's usual greed that makes them not allowing any kinds of (runnable app-wise, unrestricted) emulators in the AppStore, oh yes.

----------

Not questioning that. Here was the other misinformation that I referred to

By "Emulators can only be illegal in one case: if they're distributed with the original firmware of the emulated device. This is why many legally distributed emulators (e.g., NeoGeo emulators) require you to separately download the firmware.", I only referred to their distribution in app stores (without pirated / unlicensed BIOS / firmware / games), not their usage after downloading.

If distributing emulators were illegal, Google / MS wouldn't let them in their stores either. After all, they wouldn't want to be sued by Nintendo, Sega, Sony and the likes. They (assuming they do tick in the above checkboxes) are not. This is why the not-as-greedy-as-Apple Google and MS happily make these emulators available.

 

[BaldiMac]

A BIOS-less emulator is perfectly legal

Possibly. As I said, it depends on many other factors.

and it's not up to Apple to make sure their users use legal means to obtain BIOS and cartridge images.

Where have I mentioned Apple not allowing emulators for legal reasons?

Interestingly, Microsoft isn't interested in this "legality" stuff. They do let all kinds of emulators in their app store. So do Google. How strange...

Interesting that different companies do things differently.

----------

I only referred to their distribution in app stores (without pirated / unlicensed BIOS / firmware / games), not their usage after downloading.

Okay. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

 

[Renzatic]

Sure it does. The Betamax case established that to avoid contributory infringement the product must have significant non-infringing use. Which does not mean "some people might possibly use it legally".

That's exactly what it means. An emulator by itself is just a program, and could be considered anything from a tool, to a preservative platform, to educational.

And much the same way we used our Betamax players and VCRs to record moves off HBO and swap them with our friends, an emulator can and will be used to play illegally pirated roms. It's legal status isn't at all tied to how people choose to use it, so long as it has other uses.

Think of it like this. A game company wants to port one of their games originally for the Super Nintendo to iOS. Instead of rewriting the game from scratch, they can write a Super Nintendo emulator and do a direct port. That might be considered sloppy, but it's perfectly legal, so long as the porting company doesn't use any Nintendo specific IP when making their emulator. And no, an emulator itself can't be considered infringing on any copyrights since the developer is only mimicking the function of the original hardware using their own code, and functionality can't be copyrighted or patented.

If you want a working example, this is what Squaresoft did when porting Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana to iOS. They also did this when releasing the Final Fantasy collection on the Playstation way back when.

And since the law can't make any legal differentiations between functionally similar pieces of software on a whim, then every IP-free emulator has to be, by definition, legal. Whether it's one designed to run one specific game, or one that generically emulates the platform as a whole, it doesn't matter. An emulator is an emulator, and all emulators are legal, so long as the person writing the emulator only distributes their own code.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Possibly. As I said, it depends on many other factors.

As Renzatic has also stated, "no, an emulator itself can't be considered infringing on any copyrights since the developer is only mimicking the function of the original hardware using their own code, and functionality can't be copyrighted or patented." He's perfectly right.

Where have I mentioned Apple not allowing emulators for legal reasons?

You started with talking about security (on which, while I did ask you to elaborate, you haven't talked since) and Apple's business goals (read: to have as much AppStore income as possible). Legality issues was later brought up by you - and, during the last 2 hours it was you who have been trying to explain how inherently illegal emulators and/or their users' practices are.

Interesting that different companies do things differently.

Yes, but why? Surely not because of Apple's greed?

Okay. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

I wasn't. I all the time talked about BIOS-less distribution (which is perfectly legal), not about end users' means of obtaining ROM dumps.

 

[BaldiMac]

That's exactly what it means. An emulator by itself is just a program, and could be considered anything from a tool, to a preservative platform, to educational.

And much the same way we used our Betamax players and VCRs to record moves off HBO and swap them with our friends, an emulator can and will be used to play illegally pirated roms. It's legal status isn't at all tied to how people choose to use it, so long as it has other uses.

Think of it like this. A game company wants to port one of their games originally for the Super Nintendo to iOS. Instead of rewriting the game from scratch, they can write a Super Nintendo emulator and do a direct port. That might be considered sloppy, but it's perfectly legal, so long as the porting company doesn't use any Nintendo specific IP when making their emulator. And no, an emulator itself can't be considered infringing on any copyrights since the developer is only mimicking the function of the original hardware using their own code, and functionality can't be copyrighted or patented.

If you want a working example, this is what Squaresoft did when porting Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana to iOS. They also did this when releasing the Final Fantasy collection on the Playstation way back when.

And since the law can't make any legal differentiations between functionally similar pieces of software on a whim, then every IP-free emulator has to be, by definition, legal. Whether it's one designed to run one specific game, or one that generically emulates the platform as a whole, it doesn't matter. An emulator is an emulator, and all emulators are legal, so long as the person writing the emulator only distributes their own code.

Nope. The burden is "substantial non-infringing use". The Betamax ruling considered the time-shifting of tv shows to be a substantial non-infringing use for VCRs. There is no such "substantial" use for emulators of cartridge-based games. Most people can't even rip them.

http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonr...1984-supreme-court-decides-sony-betamax-case/

 

[Menneisyys2]

Nope. The burden is "substantial non-infringing use". The Betamax ruling considered the time-shifting of tv shows to be a substantial non-infringing use for VCRs. There is no such "substantial" use for emulators of cartridge-based games. Most people can't even rip them.

http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonr...1984-supreme-court-decides-sony-betamax-case/

Then, how come Microsoft and Google aren't sued by Nintendo or SEGA for making all those cartridge-based emulators available in their respective app stores? Probably because if there is a chance your users can obtain stuff legally, then, you, as an emulator dev (or, with Microsoft & Google, distributor) can rigtfully distribute those emulators?

Look: I understand you're an Apple enthusiast (after all, we've had endless debates in the past, on other subjects as well). Nevertheless, you really should admit that Apple's reluctance to allow for unrestricted emulators in the AppStore is plain greed. No legality issues, no security issues - plain and simple greed.

 

[BaldiMac]

As Renzatic has also stated, "no, an emulator itself can't be considered infringing on any copyrights since the developer is only mimicking the function of the original hardware using their own code, and functionality can't be copyrighted or patented." He's perfectly right.

I've responded to him.

You started with talking about security (on which, while I did ask you to elaborate, you haven't talked since)

Are you unaware that iOS apps are vetted by Apple? I thought that was obvious.

and Apple's business goals (read: to have as much AppStore income as possible).

No, I stated that it would bypass the App Store business. Apple would have a hard time running the App Store if anyone could distribute a free app that distributes paid apps without paying Apple at all.

Legality issues was later brought up by you - and, during the last 2 hours it was you who have been trying to explain how inherently illegal emulators and/or their users' practices are.

Separate issue. And, no, I have never said emulators are inherently illegal.

Yes, but why? Surely not because of Apple's greed?

The reasons that I have stated multiple times. The iOS security model and the ability to bypass the App Store.

I wasn't. I all the time talked about BIOS-less distribution (which is perfectly legal), not about end users' means of obtaining ROM dumps.

Wow. Again, the fact that it is BIOS-less is not the only factor! It could contain stolen code. It could contain repositories of stolen code. It could have been developed from stolen code. I could go on, but surely you realize that there are other factors.

 

[Renzatic]

Nope. The burden is "substantial non-infringing use". The Betamax ruling considered the time-shifting of tv shows to be a substantial non-infringing use for VCRs. There is no such "substantial" use for emulators of cartridge-based games. Most people can't even rip them.

http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonr...1984-supreme-court-decides-sony-betamax-case/

You're missing the one most important part of my argument. This emulator has no substantial non-infringing uses, that's true. But by law, they can't make this emulator illegal while giving a pass to another emulator, since one emulator written by a hobbyist to run illegal games is functionally the same as another emulator written by a professional developer to run their own games on another piece of hardware.

So because other emulators have legitimate uses, this emulator is legal by association (or would be if it didn't use Nintendo's BIOS image, but for the sake of argument we'll assume they reverse engineered that as well, which is also legal for much the same reasons).

Also, there are currently emulators happily residing on the App Store. There are a few for old ZX Spectrum, C64, Atari 2600, and a crapton of old arcade games. They're emulators, but they only allow you to choose from a select set of games, and doesn't allow you access to add your own. That's the only difference between those emulators and this one, and since they're legal, so is this one.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then, how come Microsoft and Google aren't sued by Nintendo or SEGA for making all those cartridge-based emulators available in their respective app stores? Probably because if there is a chance your users can obtain stuff legally, then, you, as an emulator dev (or, with Microsoft & Google, distributor) can rigtfully distribute those emulators?

How come these developers aren't being sued despite the fact that you acknowledge it is likely illegal? Not being sued isn't proof of legality.

Look: I understand you're an Apple enthusiast (after all, we've had endless debates in the past, on other subjects as well).

Other than an ad hominem argument, I have no idea what your point is here.

Nevertheless, you really should admit that Apple's reluctance to allow for unrestricted emulators in the AppStore is plain greed. No legality issues, no security issues - plain and simple greed.

Perhaps you should address my arguments with legal citations instead of logical fallacies and misinformation.

 

[filfortugno]

It works, but god is it incredibly sluggish on the iPhone 4s, perhaps it functions better on newer devices?

Tested two roms, Super Mario and Pokemon Black, both slug mode.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're missing the one most important part of my argument. This emulator has no substantial non-infringing uses, that's true. But by law, they can't make this emulator illegal while giving a pass to another emulator, since one emulator written by a hobbyist to run illegal games is functionally the same as another emulator written by a professional developer to run their own games on another piece of hardware.

So because other emulators have legitimate uses, this emulator is legal by association (or would be if it didn't use Nintendo's BIOS image, but for the sake of argument we'll assume they reverse engineered that as well, which is also legal for much the same reasons).

Cite? I'm pretty sure that you made that whole argument up out of thin air.

Also, there are currently emulators happily residing on the App Store. There are a few for old ZX Spectrum, C64, Atari 2600, and a crapton of old arcade games. They're emulators, but they only allow you to choose from a select set of games, and doesn't allow you access to add your own. That's the only difference between those emulators and this one,

I have never argued against emulation in general! Of course there are a bunch of legal emulators.

and since they're legal, so is this one.

But that's just silly.

 

[shandyman]

NDS4iOS Nintendo DS Emulator Now Available to Download

Yes. This was allowed. My company made an internal app that had to be installed the same way. Aside from setting the date back, that is.

Sorry, I did confuse things with the date thing. The date thing is to bypass the fact that Apple invalidated the certificate for breaking the terms.

Show me ANY emulator in the AppStore allowing for loading any ROM / app under it.



FYI: there isn't one. Emulators in the AppStore have a given set of games / apps and you can't add anything to them. ALL emulators that, in some way, circumvented this restriction and were manually "hackable" (iDOS etc.) have almost immediately been removed from the AppStore.



This (Apple's not allowing generic emulators in the AppStore - mainly to protect their AppStore business) is what I've been speaking of, and not specifically of this single emulator.

That is not my point, as you well know. You're twisting the debate into something unnecessary. Show me where I said we should be able to freely import ROMS. As I said, offer games as IAP, gradually expend the back catalog (although I doubt it would take long to get it all out there). If you want to debate something irrelevant to my post, don't quote me.

Their old games don't collect dust, they re sell them with emulators on the Nintendo Wii, the Wii U, and Nintendo 3DS.

I assume you will probably say, "But it's Apple, they should do it with Apple, because it's Apple and their so amazingly awesome." (Sorry that it sounded sarcastic), but for Nintendo to do that would be the same as them releasing it for the XBox One or PS4, or Sony and Microsoft releasing games on their competitor's systems. It's just not going to happened and it would affect their system's sale.

Edit: And with the less systems Nintendo sells, the less developers are going to create games for Nintendo system, the even less systems they're going to sell, and so on and so on. But Apple is sooooo awesome, Nintendo should definitely go for it.

You shouldn't assume, as you just look like an ass. I'm nowhere near saying it should be done just for Apple. They should do it on all mobile devices at least. Nothing current, just previous gens gaming. Yes they sell them on the wii, wii u and 3DS, but that's making them pittance. Opening up to iPhones, windows mobile and android devices means they reach a wider audience. They need to enter the mobile device market for games as they're flailing. The 3DS isn't as popular as other mobile devices, plus if they limit it to NES/SES/GB/GBA Games, there's no major impact on the 3DS, just extras that they're missing currently. There's no downside to this really.

Then, how come Microsoft and Google aren't sued by Nintendo or SEGA for making all those cartridge-based emulators available in their respective app stores? Probably because if there is a chance your users can obtain stuff legally, then, you, as an emulator dev (or, with Microsoft & Google, distributor) can rigtfully distribute those emulators?



Look: I understand you're an Apple enthusiast (after all, we've had endless debates in the past, on other subjects as well). Nevertheless, you really should admit that Apple's reluctance to allow for unrestricted emulators in the AppStore is plain greed. No legality issues, no security issues - plain and simple greed.

Just because they haven't sued yet, doesn't meant they can't or won't. Doesn't make it legal. Just means that they're reactive rather than proactive. You watch, if any talk/indication that there will be legal action? They'll pull them off their own app stores ASAP. If you think otherwise, you're deluded or naive.

You're missing the one most important part of my argument. This emulator has no substantial non-infringing uses, that's true. But by law, they can't make this emulator illegal while giving a pass to another emulator, since one emulator written by a hobbyist to run illegal games is functionally the same as another emulator written by a professional developer to run their own games on another piece of hardware.

So because other emulators have legitimate uses, this emulator is legal by association (or would be if it didn't use Nintendo's BIOS image, but for the sake of argument we'll assume they reverse engineered that as well, which is also legal for much the same reasons).

Also, there are currently emulators happily residing on the App Store. There are a few for old ZX Spectrum, C64, Atari 2600, and a crapton of old arcade games. They're emulators, but they only allow you to choose from a select set of games, and doesn't allow you access to add your own. That's the only difference between those emulators and this one, and since they're legal, so is this one.

Actually this emulator can be considered illegal as it points you to download ROMS from coolROMs. Same as the GBA4iOS app. Sorry if that ruins your argument.....

 

[iMacFarlane]

By that logic, Apple is missing a trick by not releasing a non-Mac version of OS X.

Apple isn't on the verge of bankruptcy because of strict adherence to a dated business model . . .

 

[Renzatic]

Cite? I'm pretty sure that you made that whole argument up out of thin air.

Here's one

But that's just silly.

It's the way it is. Since PCSX2 is functionally identical to the PS2 emulator in the PS3, it's no more or less legal. One's potential for abuse has no bearing on its overall legal status.

 

[shandyman]

Apple isn't on the verge of bankruptcy because of strict adherence to a dated business model . . .

Exactly. Nintendo needs to get with the times or they'll end up screwing themselves. Sega were sensible with switching to software only Nintendo may end up needing to go that route if they dillydally for too long.

 

[StyxMaker]

I stopped caring about emulators on Android Froyo. Really why is this a story?

Because other people do care?

 

[Renzatic]

Actually this emulator can be considered illegal as it points you to download ROMS from coolROMs. Same as the GBA4iOS app. Sorry if that ruins your argument.....

Right, but it's made illegal by additions, and doesn't do anything to make the base emulator itself illegal. Removing the links to coolROMs (and, of course, any infringing IP such as BIOSes and whatnot) would make it entirely legal.

 

[mrgulabull]

No thanks lol.

That warning is standard for any app compiled with an enterprise account. (I regularly develop and install apps with an enterprise account)

 

[BaldiMac]

Here's one

That has nothing to do with your "if one emulator is legal, than they all are" argument. It's about making copies of BIOS in the process of reverse engineering the emulator.

It's the way it is. Since PCSX2 is functionally identical to the PS2 emulator in the PS3, it's no more or less legal. One's potential for abuse has no bearing on its overall legal status.

The PCSX2 emulator can play PS2 games directly from the original game CD which is a substantial non-infringing use.

----------

Removing the links to coolROMs (and, of course, any infringing IP such as BIOSes and whatnot) would make it entirely legal.

Nope.

 

[shandyman]

Right, but it's made illegal by additions, and doesn't do anything to make the base emulator itself illegal. Removing the links to coolROMs (and, of course, any infringing IP such as BIOSes and whatnot) would make it entirely legal.

It doesn't just link. It pretty much takes you there as soon as you go to add a ROM, baked in. From what I can tell, to make it legal, they'd pretty much to have to scrap the app and start from scratch.....

 

[Renzatic]

That has nothing to do with your "if one emulator is legal, than they all are" argument. It's about making copies of BIOS in the process of reverse engineering the emulator.

You're splitting hairs. As long as the emulator itself doesn't contain any infringing IP, it is legal. It doesn't matter if the roms are easily accessible via CD, or you have to buy special hardware to rip the images. It's legal.

It. Is. Legal.

Why? Because, once again, functionality can't be patented or copyrighted, and reverse engineering, which is in and of itself attempting to copy functionality, isn't considered infringement. How a program is used has no bearing on its legal status.

Nope.

Yup.

----------

It doesn't just link. It pretty much takes you there as soon as you go to add a ROM, baked in. From what I can tell, to make it legal, they'd pretty much to have to scrap the app and start from scratch.....

Yeah, it was kinda dumb for them to add that in. Something like that is begging for a slap down. Emulators are only legal so long as it only provides the code itself. If it carries or links to any copyrighted material, you can't even argue it exists in a legal grey area anymore.

 

[Dr McKay]

Nope, if you do own the original cartridge.

Its still stealing even if you own the cartridge. The only legal way to run an emulator is to grab a copy off the BIOS of your device onto the emulator, and make a digital copy of the cartridge you physically own. Stealing one off the internet is still stealing, even if you own a copy anyway.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're splitting hairs. As long as the emulator itself doesn't contain any infringing IP, it is legal. It doesn't matter if the roms are easily accessible via CD, or you have to buy special hardware to rip the images. It's legal.

It. Is. Legal.

Again, I ask you for a cite. I linked you to the Betamax decision which established that the product must have substantial non-infringing uses to avoid contributory infringement. You acknowledged that this emulator does not. Why are you ignoring this?

Why? Because, once again, functionality can't be patented or copyrighted, and reverse engineering, which is in and of itself attempting to copy functionality, isn't considered infringement.

That's true.

How a program is used has no bearing on its legal status.

That's not true. Again, it's called contributory infringement.