For the US, DMCA bans circumvention devices. It is possible to argue that emulators run afoul of this provision.

Note that there is the following exception to dmca circumvention provision:

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."

▲

ndiddy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people find this confusing. Section 1201 of the DMCA has two parts. One part bans circumventing DRM, and the other part bans distributing devices that can circumvent DRM. The Section 1201 exemptions published by the Copyright Office only apply to the first part, not the second. I imagine it works this way because the companies lobbying for the DMCA to be passed didn't want to make it legal to sell or distribute circumvention devices as long as someone has a legal right to break the DRM, as that would defeat the purpose of the law.

▲

mmooss 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

From where is that quote?

	▲	bawolff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ although see sibling comment, i may have misunderstood how broadly it applies. Also i think i was quoting an old version that has since expired. i guess https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-10-28/pdf/2024-2... is the current version maybe.

▲

actionfromafar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

DMCA is so weird. Anything can be a circumvention device. XOR. Harsh wording with an if then.

▲

bragr 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I started to think about this like physical locks and that made it seem less weird. You don't need a great lock to communicate "this is a private space" and there's no "but your honor is was a crappy lock" defense to trespassing. Circumventing bad copy protection still establishes intent to circumvent so you're still in trouble.

▲

kay_o 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an intent thing. A protected auth checksum verification step could be the number of letters in the packet and still count, it is not a technical provision

Circumventing a xor by xoring it back is still attempted circumvention.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The "arguing in favor of a bad law by saying they'll just look at your intent" thing is completely invalid for the DMCA because your intent is the thing they don't care about. That's why it's such an absurd law. Suppose you commit unambiguous copyright infringement. Then they could already sue you regardless of whether there is any circumvention and anti-circumvention is completely redundant. It has no actual purpose that exceeds what you would get from presuming willful infringement if someone had to circumvent copy protection and then having different penalties for willful and unintentional infringement. But now suppose you don't commit copyright infringement. You make a fair use copy of the work. Completely different intent. They don't care. It's crazy. Where this gets really wild is the prohibition on circumvention tools. Suppose the copyright expires on a work previously under copyright. Happens all the time. You now have a bunch of works with a "technological protection measure" preventing you from copying them, even though they're not copyrighted. Your intent is now to publish a tool to help everyone remove the DRM from those public domain works. But maybe the same DRM is also used on other works that are still under copyright -- you may not even know that. So does your intent matter or not?

▲

cowlevel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Programmer runs into the fact the law runs on intent and actual happenings rather than the form of a thing, gets confused.

Anything can be a murder weapon too. Kitchen fork. Rubber ducky.

	▲	actionfromafar 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I agree with all that. But we accept that reverse engineering is often a correct, honest, morally legit thing to do. But tape on a padlock made of paper onto the thing and suddenly you are criminally liable for repairing your tractor.