Homebrew Leaked SDK = better homebrew?

[flarn2006]

It would be illegal to do anything with it. Technically you could distribute the source code only, but no one could legally compile it (including the original author), let alone distribute it. It is not worth the trouble, unless you just don't care at all that it is illegal, which still has its own problems.

Why couldn't you legally compile it? As long as you're not distributing the SDK or anything containing code from it, but rather finding a copy of the SDK yourself and using it to compile code that is licensed for distribution (such as a homebrew application.)

I don't think just downloading the SDK would be considered piracy as long as it's not being used by a company, considering it's not something an individual can buy. Even a company can't just buy it; they have to sign an NDA with Nintendo and pass some kind of approval process I assume.

 

[Vappy]

I don't think just downloading the SDK would be considered piracy as long as it's not being used by a company, considering it's not something an individual can buy. Even a company can't just buy it; they have to sign an NDA with Nintendo and pass some kind of approval process I assume.

It's Nintendo's intellectual property, which makes downloading it without a license a case of copyright infringement. It being available for sale commercially or not doesn't change that.

And yes you probably could distribute the source code for software that can be compiled with the SDK, but it'd still be illegal to share any compiled versions, and expecting anyone who wants to use your homebrew to pirate the official SDK just to compile it themselves makes for a very inconvenient and illegal distribution method.

 

[WulfyStylez]

Yeah, Nintendo's SDK is both copyrighted and distributed under NDA. 'Piracy' wouldn't be the right word, it's quite a bit worse.

 

[flarn2006]

Yeah, Nintendo's SDK is both copyrighted and distributed under NDA. 'Piracy' wouldn't be the right word, it's quite a bit worse.

From my understanding, the fact that it's distributed under NDA doesn't affect me considering I didn't sign an NDA. If I were to distribute the SDK, it wouldn't be anything more than copyright infringement, considering I never signed the NDA and am therefore not bound by its terms. (not a lawyer)

Companies sign the NDA because they have to in order to get access to the latest version, the support that comes with it, and the licenses necessary to publish games using it. If I already obtained a copy of the SDK from somewhere else, and have no need for support from Nintendo or publishing games to the eShop, and didn't sign the NDA, oh well, sucks for you Nintendo.

Why would an NDA have any effect on the legality of anything I do if I didn't sign said NDA?

 

[clienthax]

i know that retroarch for ps3 uses the official sdk from sony, but they don't distribute it.

 

[ChrisX930]

Was someone able to build some of the samples?
I always get an error.

 

[0xFFFF]

Why would an NDA have any effect on the legality of anything I do if I didn't sign said NDA?

Anything you will do, despite not signing the NDA (which you can't anyway unless you're a game developer and/or company chairman), will be illegal.
You illegally obtained the SDK, and the output binaries/data uses Nintendo's libraries which was not licensed to you.

 

[flarn2006]

Anything you will do, despite not signing the NDA (which you can't anyway unless you're a game developer and/or company chairman), will be illegal.
You illegally obtained the SDK, and the output binaries/data uses Nintendo's libraries which was not licensed to you.

But there's no way I could have obtained a license, so what does the law expect me to do? Start a company and pitch a game to Nintendo just so I can play around with the SDK?

I don't see how Nintendo could convince a judge that if I hadn't used a leaked copy of the SDK I would have actually obtained a license through an official means.

 

[Vappy]

But there's no way I could have obtained a license, so what does the law expect me to do? Start a company and pitch a game to Nintendo just so I can play around with the SDK?

Yes? I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. In what world do you live that you can argue "It was hard to do legally, so that makes it ok to do it illegally" with a straight face?

The SDK isn't for "playing around with", it's for legitimate companies to make commerical games with.

 

[WulfyStylez]

But there's no way I could have obtained a license, so what does the law expect me to do? Start a company and pitch a game to Nintendo just so I can play around with the SDK?

Well... yeah. They chose to lock off their system to licensed developers for a reason. The DMCA makes it legal to do homebrew and stuff (in the US, at least), but using their copyrighted code and libraries to make it is still illegal.

 

[flarn2006]

Okay, let me give you an analogy: Let's say I created this really fun game on my computer, and posted videos of it to YouTube showing off how great it was. Everyone sees it and wants to play it, but for whatever reason I decide to be a dick and not share it with anyone. (If I actually made something like that, I wouldn't really refuse to share it of course; this is only hypothetical.) Now let's say I upload it to my Google Drive account so I can download it on my other computer, but I accidentally upload it to a folder I made public.

I quickly notice my mistake and move it out of there, but before I'm able to, some lucky bastard with a fast Internet connection manages to download it. Said lucky bastard decides to do a good deed and re-upload it somewhere, and everyone who saw my videos finally gets to play it.

But I, being the asshole I am in this hypothetical universe, enjoyed seeing people complain about not being able to play it, so I decide to hire a bunch of lawyers and sue everyone I can find who decides to keep playing it. I think to myself: good thing I thought of the possibility of a leak and included a "license agreement" in the files that said, essentially, "nobody may use this software except for me!" Now my lawyers can say, "You are playing this game, but you do not have a license permitting you to do so!"

If, from a legal standpoint, the people I'm suing are actually in the wrong for that reason, that is just messed up.

I'm aware Nintendo isn't just trying to keep people from having fun (seriously, of all companies?) but still, they aren't harmed in any way by some random person on the Internet playing around with a leaked SDK without any desire to take away sales from anyone, so they shouldn't be able to abuse copyright law in that manner. (Though I am aware that "should" isn't necessarily the case in our legal system, especially when big companies are involved.)

 

[0xFFFF]

Okay, let me give you an analogy: Let's say I created this really fun game on my computer, and posted videos of it to YouTube showing off how great it was. Everyone sees it and wants to play it, but for whatever reason I decide to be a dick and not share it with anyone. (If I actually made something like that, I wouldn't really refuse to share it of course; this is only hypothetical.) Now let's say I upload it to my Google Drive account so I can download it on my other computer, but I accidentally upload it to a folder I made public.

I quickly notice my mistake and move it out of there, but before I'm able to, some lucky bastard with a fast Internet connection manages to download it. Said lucky bastard decides to do a good deed and re-upload it somewhere, and everyone who saw my videos finally gets to play it.

But I, being the asshole I am in this hypothetical universe, enjoyed seeing people complain about not being able to play it, so I decide to hire a bunch of lawyers and sue everyone I can find who decides to keep playing it. I think to myself: good thing I thought of the possibility of a leak and included a "license agreement" in the files that said, essentially, "nobody may use this software except for me!" Now my lawyers can say, "You are playing this game, but you do not have a license permitting you to do so!"

If, from a legal standpoint, the people I'm suing are actually in the wrong for that reason, that is just messed up.

I'm aware Nintendo isn't just trying to keep people from having fun (seriously, of all companies?) but still, they aren't harmed in any way by some random person on the Internet playing around with a leaked SDK without any desire to take away sales from anyone, so they shouldn't be able to abuse copyright law in that manner. (Though I am aware that "should" isn't necessarily the case in our legal system, especially when big companies are involved.)

It's still illegal to use the SDK without Nintendo's permission whatsoever.
If they caught you using it, may it be just a youtube video, they have all the rights to sue you for illegally usung their software.

 

[RachelB]

Okay, let me give you an analogy: Let's say I created this really fun game on my computer, and posted videos of it to YouTube showing off how great it was. Everyone sees it and wants to play it, but for whatever reason I decide to be a dick and not share it with anyone. (If I actually made something like that, I wouldn't really refuse to share it of course; this is only hypothetical.) Now let's say I upload it to my Google Drive account so I can download it on my other computer, but I accidentally upload it to a folder I made public.

I quickly notice my mistake and move it out of there, but before I'm able to, some lucky bastard with a fast Internet connection manages to download it. Said lucky bastard decides to do a good deed and re-upload it somewhere, and everyone who saw my videos finally gets to play it.

But I, being the asshole I am in this hypothetical universe, enjoyed seeing people complain about not being able to play it, so I decide to hire a bunch of lawyers and sue everyone I can find who decides to keep playing it. I think to myself: good thing I thought of the possibility of a leak and included a "license agreement" in the files that said, essentially, "nobody may use this software except for me!" Now my lawyers can say, "You are playing this game, but you do not have a license permitting you to do so!"

If, from a legal standpoint, the people I'm suing are actually in the wrong for that reason, that is just messed up.

I'm aware Nintendo isn't just trying to keep people from having fun (seriously, of all companies?) but still, they aren't harmed in any way by some random person on the Internet playing around with a leaked SDK without any desire to take away sales from anyone, so they shouldn't be able to abuse copyright law in that manner. (Though I am aware that "should" isn't necessarily the case in our legal system, especially when big companies are involved.)

It's called copyright, and yes that is very much illegal for those downloading it. Copyright prevents anyone from copying a work of art (which includes computer software) without permission from the copyright owner (usually the author(s), or the company that employs the author(s)). Downloading it makes a copy. Copyright applies automatically; there is no need for the author to do anything for these restrictions to apply. These restrictions last essentially forever (not exactly, but the duration is constantly extended, so there is no guarantee they will ever end for anything made in the last 100 years or so). The situation you described is indeed illegal, and you could sue them for it.

Yes, it is messed up.

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

same here, we're you able to fix it?
It seems there's a problem with the commondefs.funcs.om file

I want to use the SDK for private uses ONLY (testing purposes)

Developing a legal unofficial opensource SDK is the way to go. As Team Fail has already stated using/distrubuting the official sdk is highly illegal and any homebrew developed using it would automatically be illegal to possess, use and distribute.

An open source sdk (like devkitpro) would be ideal for any homebrew scene. That is unless you're prepared to face the wrath of Nintendo's legal team (good luck with that.....)

 

[FAST6191]

Okay, let me give you an analogy: Let's say I created this really fun game on my computer, and posted videos of it to YouTube showing off how great it was. Everyone sees it and wants to play it, but for whatever reason I decide to be a dick and not share it with anyone. (If I actually made something like that, I wouldn't really refuse to share it of course; this is only hypothetical.) Now let's say I upload it to my Google Drive account so I can download it on my other computer, but I accidentally upload it to a folder I made public.

I quickly notice my mistake and move it out of there, but before I'm able to, some lucky bastard with a fast Internet connection manages to download it. Said lucky bastard decides to do a good deed and re-upload it somewhere, and everyone who saw my videos finally gets to play it.

But I, being the asshole I am in this hypothetical universe, enjoyed seeing people complain about not being able to play it, so I decide to hire a bunch of lawyers and sue everyone I can find who decides to keep playing it. I think to myself: good thing I thought of the possibility of a leak and included a "license agreement" in the files that said, essentially, "nobody may use this software except for me!" Now my lawyers can say, "You are playing this game, but you do not have a license permitting you to do so!"

If, from a legal standpoint, the people I'm suing are actually in the wrong for that reason, that is just messed up.

I'm aware Nintendo isn't just trying to keep people from having fun (seriously, of all companies?) but still, they aren't harmed in any way by some random person on the Internet playing around with a leaked SDK without any desire to take away sales from anyone, so they shouldn't be able to abuse copyright law in that manner. (Though I am aware that "should" isn't necessarily the case in our legal system, especially when big companies are involved.)

Others have already taken it but I feel like noting some things.

To confuse matters there a leaked build could get odd. There is a concept known as registered copyright, it varies all over the place but where there are certain protections to anybody that makes a copyrightable work but to do it properly you need to register the copyright. Mind you if you have the license thing then you probably did that as well.

Licenses get odd as well. Licenses vary around the world, most notably in this case with regards to where a license is applicable (in the US a license can be applied at any time, in a lot of Europe it technically has to be at the point of sale/download). This is not to say you would be without recourse, however it would just be plain old copyright you have to play with (possibly trademark law as well). Generally a license is but an agreement about how you can use an intellectual property rights protected work. There is plenty of law surrounding it all, most prominently what you can and can not do in one, but it is not some magical additional construct within the law.

As for not troubling the company... you might argue that but if you are going to do it in front of a judge then I would not put money on you winning. At this point Nintendo would probably point at its own past and how they managed to get into the computer game industry after the free for all of the atari era. Or if you prefer a regulated market does have its perks.

Also some of you might want to look up the term clean room reverse engineering.

 

[RachelB]

To confuse matters there a leaked build could get odd. There is a concept known as registered copyright, it varies all over the place but where there are certain protections to anybody that makes a copyrightable work but to do it properly you need to register the copyright. Mind you if you have the license thing then you probably did that as well.

Not true, registering a copyright serves only to make it easier to prove you own it. In this case, that is not an issue. All copyright restrictions are in place instantly as soon as the work is created.

 

[FAST6191]

My bad, should not do legal ish type things at 1am.

Theoretically, and reading the low codes it does, apply but in the US the legacy of the 1978 change, or indeed the mentality prior, looms long and in this instance it is almost the modern equivalent of the "mail it to yourself" poor man's copyright. On the other hand if you are trying to nail people to the wall for more than your theoretical loss then at worst it is going to be a minor formality in the grand scheme of things, and probably one you sidestep in later cases by pointing at a previous cases/establishing case.

 

[NyaakoXD]

In short, using the to make homebrew SDK is a nono.

 

[NCDyson]

If this guy is willing to ignore the explanations and advice of people who are clearly more well versed in legal matters than him I say let him do what he wants. When he releases something compiled with the official SDK, Nintendo will take him to court, and he'll find out that the legal system doesn't work the way he thinks it should.

Why is this topic even still open?

 

[Zidapi]

Yes? I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. In what world do you live that you can argue "It was hard to do legally, so that makes it ok to do it illegally" with a straight face

The same world that virtually every pirate on GBAtemp lives in?

"I don't have a job/the money to buy the game so it's okay for me to steal it. But it's not really stealing because I was never going to buy the game in the first place."

I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about piracy (mostly because I'd be horribly outnumbered), but also because it'd take it off topic.

If this guy is willing to ignore the explanations and advice of people who are clearly more well versed in legal matters than him I say let him do what he wants. When he releases something compiled with the official SDK, Nintendo will take him to court, and he'll find out that the legal system doesn't work the way he thinks it should.

Why is this topic even still open?

I second this. OP has the answers he/she seeks, I think the thread can be locked now.