• @SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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!

    • Rustmilian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Rustmilian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      Bleem was a promising commercial Playstation emulator which first appeared in 1999. Bleem won the lawsuits launched against it by Sony.

      https://www.eurogamer.net/the-history-of-bleem

      https://www.gtplanet.net/bleem-made-gran-turismo-2-better-driving-simulator/