Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
You must be retarded. We’ve been over this already. Homebrew tools are completely legal under section 107.
Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
No they didn’t, they provided links to 3rd party homebrew tools which in themselves are again protected by section 107.
This is entirely irrelevant to your claim that they provided encryption keys.
The key they used was acquired illegally,
Proof?
they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally,
No, they again provided a guide on how to homebrew your own console and dump your own key legally. Which yet again is covered by section 107.
they tested with illegal Roms,
Again, Proof?
they profited from it,
No. They profited from beta releases of their legal emulation software, which is legal, there’s many legal for profit emulators that exists and infact most of the precedence set for emulators are set by for-profit emulators, which yet again are protected under section 107.
etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
I’m not ignoring shit, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide fucking proof basically 100,000 times by now. I’m over it. shut the fuck up, goodbye.
That’s IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial… they profited…. It also says personal use…… It also says certain cases…. which they certainly didn’t fall under!
personal, non-commercial use has
considered a lawful fair use in certain
You just shot your own foot again with your own source, but you’re probably not going to comprehend this either, and I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment now since youve moved to insulting to try and make your asinine point, bye!
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Too bad. Here’s more :
Bleem, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2000)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Connectix Corporation (2000)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992)
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. (1992)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Cyberhead (2002)
Literally all of these set the precedents protected by section 107.
Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
You must be retarded. We’ve been over this already. Homebrew tools are completely legal under section 107.
No they didn’t, they provided links to 3rd party homebrew tools which in themselves are again protected by section 107.
This is entirely irrelevant to your claim that they provided encryption keys.
Proof?
No, they again provided a guide on how to homebrew your own console and dump your own key legally. Which yet again is covered by section 107.
Again, Proof?
No. They profited from beta releases of their legal emulation software, which is legal, there’s many legal for profit emulators that exists and infact most of the precedence set for emulators are set by for-profit emulators, which yet again are protected under section 107.
I’m not ignoring shit, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide fucking proof basically 100,000 times by now. I’m over it. shut the fuck up, goodbye.
That’s IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial… they profited…. It also says personal use…… It also says certain cases…. which they certainly didn’t fall under!
You just shot your own foot again with your own source, but you’re probably not going to comprehend this either, and I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment now since youve moved to insulting to try and make your asinine point, bye!
Please, get your dumb ass to a lawyer.
Bleem vs. Sony 2001 disproves your argument entirely and is literally one of the precedence set for section 107. Also, stop with the foot fetish.
https://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/psx/bleem.html
https://www.eurogamer.net/the-history-of-bleem
https://www.gtplanet.net/bleem-made-gran-turismo-2-better-driving-simulator/
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Too bad. Here’s more :
Bleem, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2000)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Connectix Corporation (2000)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992)
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. (1992)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Cyberhead (2002)
Literally all of these set the precedents protected by section 107.