All this guys is doing is making it compatible with Android.
Which is why it's valuable to us Android users. If it was only compatible with, say, the Commodore 64, the market for it on Android systems would be somewhat less, you know?
Could be. I know I used ZSNES quite a bit back in the day. :)
If it was just the Snex9x team, why was everything pulled?
Because Google booted him from the marketplace entirely.
Calling up Google and saying "Hey, this guy ripped off our code. Please stop supporting him." is much easier for a cashless FOSS developer to do than hiring a lawyer and going after him in court. If Nintendo was behind this, do you think putting the same infringing code up elsewhere would be the logical thing for him to do?
The SNES wasn't a console? Maybe there's a joke in there that I missed . . .
Perhaps he assumes (probably correctly) that the Snes9x team, being FOSS developers, do not have the resources to sue him for his violation of their license? And if he's right, why wouldn't he just put them up elsewhere and continue to rake in the cash? If indeed he did get in trouble with Nintendo, I assume he would not put them up again on a different market, since they deep pockets and legions of angry lawyers.
The fact that put them up elsewhere actually supports the "Snes9x Infringement Theory" over the "Angry Nintendo Theory".
His flagrant disregard for the open source license got him booted from the Android market altogether, which is why the rest of his apps went too. Besides, he can still distribute his apps himself, since Android is not locked into one market; Google just won't help him do it anymore.
It's not certain that this was, in fact, pressure by Nintendo. Via Slashdot, it was said that his SNES emulator was in large part based on SNES9x, an open source emulator with a license that specifically disallows commercial use of their code.
So it might still be copyright-related, but not for the reasons you suggest.
I'm a fan of the theory that civil libertarianism "happens" to people. People are all about fellating authority until a SWAT team crashes through their front door, shoots their already-caged dog (and maybe one of their children), throws them to the ground at gunpoint, and demands to know where their illegally downloaded movies are.
Libertarianism happens to people real quick after that.
It's not like they're going to lock up every soccer mom who posts a YouTube video to her FaceBook wall. Nah, there would be public outrage then. More likely, they'll just prosecute the uppity ones. Have you recently been publicly critical of a politician? Did you "Like" WikiLeaks on FaceBook? Do you submit code to open source projects like Tor? Well then, they're going to be searching through your blog links very carefully.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt."
Fear and chilling effects. I'm sure that those who would take away freedom appreciate your compliance. You set a fine example.
For better or for worse, I have a lot to lose. I try to subvert the system in other ways, when I can. ;)
Your sample size of one is very persuasive.
If the recording industry is relying on you for their charts and statistics, no wonder their profits are hurtling towards the ground at break-neck speed.
Oh, those copyright maximalists; always supporting the kiddie porn.
Disgusting pervs.
So anti-IP now = pedophiles, because one person on the internet believes in both.
The troll is strong with this one.
I'm sure they'll be arresting all the other internet infrastructure owners shortly. Since the internet certainly allows some people to find kiddie porn, all of the internet infrastructure should be seized too, right?
That was my reason for not setting up my high bandwidth computer as a Tor exit node. I would probably beat any charge in court, but it would be expensive and could screw up my security clearance (and by association, my job).
And I submit that you would show that you "had knowledge of events before they took place", by predicting those events, and then having those events take place.
How many of the In Our Sites that were seized have reappeared?
They never went away. Having your number removed from the phone book doesn't prevent people from calling you.
If you don't support the copyrights of ultrasound equipment manufacturers and hospital technicians, what incentive will they have to keep making ultrasounds?
Why do you hate pregnant mothers?
Just another free-loading piracy apologist AC.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification
So you're saying throw out everything by any user that gets hit with one DMCA?
What does a DMCA have to do with violating a terms of service? Did he even get hit with a DMCA? I didn't see anything in the post that would lead me to believe that Google didn't investigate the claim before they booted him. Do you know otherwise?