Legality of TPU Hosting DLSS DLLs

[R-T-B]

Would DLSS constitute as a component part of the game or separate component from it!?

Legally speaking the game is the complete software package, so yes DLSS is part of it, whether licensed or not.

Mind you thats only one of many ways to get the dlls. It's probably easier to claim you got them from the SDK then ripped them from commercial games.

 

[freeagent]

There’s no way TPU has a legal team lol

Oh ok. I see you know this as fact. Pardon me. I don't know the owner, but I am fucking positive he would not break any kind of laws with a site like this. There may not be a team but sure as shit he has a good lawyer, and you would be silly to think otherwise. I am truly astounded by the tears in this thread..

 

[moproblems99]

Oh ok. I see you know this as fact. Pardon me. I don't know the owner, but I am fucking positive he would not break any kind of laws with a site like this. There may not be a team but sure as shit he has a good lawyer, and you would be silly to think otherwise. I am truly astounded by the tears in this thread..

@claes , is THE attorney.

 

[freeagent]

All good!

I still have room in my mouth for the other foot

Edit

 

[Dredi]

Counter argument :
What if you install game over GOG or Steam and as you install them, you do not open game and you do not accept any EULAs. At this point you pretty much have a game but you are not forced to oblige to proceed with EULA until you open game. This is same thing as with hardware, until you open product to run and you tick "I agree with license agreements" those are sort of void and this is why dumps of GPU or motherboard BIOSes are around on internet.

This doesn't work when you legitimatly download entire Nvidia's SDK because there you are forced to register and process of downloading itself forces you to apply for it.

Licences don’t work like that. There is definitely a licence or eula.txt somewhere in the game files that you should be aware of when you copy stuff around. If things worked as you portray, people could just download the entirety of github, use the contents freely and when sued over licence violations say that ”i didn’t read the licence so it does not apply, LOL”.

I also have a feeling that the steam eula for example has some words in there to prevent this. Likely in the form of some blanket eula if not overruled by a specific game eula, or something similar.

 

[Space Lynx]

I have no idea what any of this thread is about. lol

So some people make adjustments to DLSS and improve them so the games run better? Isn't that just considered game mods? In fact wouldn't Nvidia welcome that? It means less resources they have to dish out to keep optimizing DLSS all the time.

Or am I simply not understanding what these DLSS files are for?

 

[Mussels]

I have no idea what any of this thread is about. lol

So some people make adjustments to DLSS and improve them so the games run better? Isn't that just considered game mods? In fact wouldn't Nvidia welcome that? It means less resources they have to dish out to keep optimizing DLSS all the time.

Or am I simply not understanding what these DLSS files are for?

They tweak the DLSS values (in hidden ways we cant see or edit) and people found swapping newer ones in had great results.
TPU is hosting them in a malware free, safe way and thats it.

 

[Space Lynx]

They tweak the DLSS values (in hidden ways we cant see or edit) and people found swapping newer ones in had great results.
TPU is hosting them in a malware free, safe way and thats it.

so yeah not much different than a game mod then imo. I don't see why nvidia would be mad about it, it helps them out. People won't use it unless it has good ratings and verified by others that it improves performance over other DLSS... so its basically like freelance free work for nvidia devs. lol

I imagine the only scenario nvidia wouldn't like this... if its lower quality too much to get that performance... but again most people won't be using those files unless good reviews/recommended, etc...

I don't know, I don't care either way personally as I only have a gtx 1070.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The legal talk is silly cause if Nv had an issue, the download would be removed and thats that.

They dont instantly sue you into oblivion, the first step is always a take down request (which you can refuse if you're confident its legal)

And this is exactly why this whole thread is a waste of time and energy. Another user put it perfectly:

If NVIDIA has an issue, they'll contact Wizz.

And the problem would be over...

They tweak the DLSS values (in hidden ways we cant see or edit) and people found swapping newer ones in had great results.
TPU is hosting them in a malware free, safe way and thats it.

Just for the record, this is perfectly legal.

 

[pantherx12]

AHH, this thread has a certain nostalgia for me.

Reminds me of when mailman and I used to argue for pages and pages.

Good times.

 

[Dredi]

Just for the record, this is perfectly legal.

Did you ask a lawyer?

So some people make adjustments to DLSS and improve them so the games run better? Isn't that just considered game mods? In fact wouldn't Nvidia welcome that? It means less resources they have to dish out to keep optimizing DLSS all the time.

Yes, it makes no sense for nvidia to have the licence they currently have in place for the DLSS dll’s.

 

[qubit]

AHH, this thread has a certain nostalgia for me.

Reminds me of when mailman and I used to argue for pages and pages.

Good times.

Yeah, what happened to him? I see he hasn't logged in for years.

Slightly off topic, but just one or two posts, mods.

 

[Aquinus]

So, I have a question for all of you. What's so wrong about going to nVidia's site and agreeing to the license to gain access to all the DLLs in the SDK and using those that you need? It's a pretty easy process, so I'm not sure why people are fighting against the license. There really is a pretty simple legal solution to this, and that's just to download it from nVidia after agreeing to the license.

 

[qubit]

So, I have a question for all of you. What's so wrong about going to nVidia's site and agreeing to the license to gain access to all the DLLs in the SDK and using those that you need? It's a pretty easy process, so I'm not sure why people are fighting against the license. There really is a pretty simple legal solution to this, and that's just to download it from nVidia after agreeing to the license.

There's nothing wrong with that, either.

You know my thoughts on the whole issue though, so I won't repeat them here.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Did you ask a lawyer?

I once worked in the legal profession and specialized in the area of copyright law. I once argued against microsoft in binding mediation. I won. Any more questions?

 

[Mussels]

I once worked in the legal profession and specialized in the area of copyright law. I once argued against microsoft in binding mediation. I won. Any more questions?

Why did you steal 40 cakes? That's as many as four tens. That's terrible.

 

[W1zzard]

What's so wrong about going to nVidia's site and agreeing to the license to gain access to all the DLLs in the SDK and using those that you need?

The SDK gives you only one specific version of the DLL I hear. Other versions are unobtainable through NVIDIA

 

[Aquinus]

The SDK gives you only one specific version of the DLL I hear. Other versions are unobtainable through NVIDIA

...but isn't the goal to use newer versions to improve performance and visual quality? Not older versions to fix issues introduced in newer versions? What value is the older DLLs if the real goal is to swap out newer ones? Either way, this is aside from the legal discussion. Just getting it from nVidia removes any doubt which is why I suggest it.

 

[qubit]

I once worked in the legal profession and specialized in the area of copyright law. I once argued against microsoft in binding mediation. I won. Any more questions?

0wnage.

 

[W1zzard]

What value is the older DLLs if the real goal is to swap out newer ones?

Research? Several tech press people reached out to me already and thanked me for it. Also not sure if the version in the SDK is synchronized to be the actual latest, and will be so for the future

older versions to fix issues introduced in newer versions

maybe that too

 

[Mussels]

I couldnt save the link, but my pixel phones news feed just popped up with an article thanking TPU for hosting the DLSS files, that did mention the theorised legal controversy

 

[lexluthermiester]

So, I have a question for all of you. What's so wrong about going to nVidia's site and agreeing to the license to gain access to all the DLLs in the SDK and using those that you need?

There is nothing wrong with that. However, that is an involved process. Making modifications to files for the purpose of altering the effect of how they work or function is protected by fair-use, and that's fine too. NVidia's files are not being distributed in a way that violates their rights and for the following reasons;

1. Regardless of how the files are used, an EULA is in force at all times. Either one would need to agree for the SDK or one would have to agree to use the GPU drivers, which the files in question can not operate without. Either way, NVidia's interests are being properly governed and protected.

2. Making modifications to such files and making them available does not violate NVidia's rights because distribution is not unlawful in and of itself. An end user can not use such files without agreeing to NVidia's terms in one form or another. The modifications are protected fair-use. The distribution is not unlawful because it does not circumvent any of NVidia's governing terms.

3. Both situations are not legally actionable as no attributable harm is being done to NVidia.

 

[Aquinus]

Research? Several tech press people reached out to me already and thanked me for it. Also not sure if the version in the SDK is synchronized to be the actual latest, and will be so for the future


maybe that too

So for my work I used a proprietary database that has package for basically the SQLite version of it that runs in a single service (versus distributed and in the cloud,) and I have to go through the exact same process to get it. It's a library, although not a DLL, it's a JAR that I can can use. Datomic only provides the current version of dev local and the only reason I would ever want an older version is because I'm too lazy to update all of the dependencies where it's used. Backwards compatibility is usually fine, so it tends to be a drop-in replacement. I suspect that nVidia designs their libraries the same way within a major version, which is why I find the need for multiple versions to be a bit dubious.

Either way, the utility isn't what I have an issue with. It's the distribution of license protected material. I'm not doubting the usefulness of what you're doing, I'm just not convinced that it's in line with the spirit of the license that came with it.

There is nothing wrong with that. However, that is an involved process. Making modifications to files for the purpose of altering the effect of how they work or function is protected by fair-use, and that's fine too. NVidia's files are not being distributed in a way that violates their rights and for the following reasons;

1. Regardless of how the files are used, an EULA is in force at all times. Either one would need to agree for the SDK or one would have to agree to use the GPU drivers, which the files in question can not operate without. Either way, NVidia's interests are being properly governed and protected.

2. Making modifications to such files and making them available does not violate NVidia's rights because distribution is not unlawful in and of itself. An end user can not use such files without agreeing to NVidia's terms in one form or another. The modifications are protected fair-use. The distribution is not unlawful because it does not circumvent any of NVidia's governing terms.

3. Both situations are not legally actionable as no attributable harm is being done to NVidia.

You pointing off what you think is important isn't the same thing as pointing out the language of the license. The license explicitly forbids redistribution outside of an application using it with licensing as strict as nVidia's license. That's the crux of the issue. These are the bits that concern me which has nothing to do with what you're mentioning. Modifications are called out in the license, but that's not the issue.

2. DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. These are the distribution requirements for you to exercise the grants above:

a. An application must have material additional functionality, beyond the included portions of the SDK.

b. The following notice shall be included in modifications and derivative works of source code distributed: “This software contains source code provided by NVIDIA Corporation.”

c. You agree to distribute the SDK subject to the terms at least as protective as the terms of this license, including (without limitation) terms relating to the license grant, license restrictions and protection of NVIDIA’s intellectual property rights. Additionally, you agree that you will protect the privacy, security and legal rights of your application users.

d. You agree to notify NVIDIA in writing of any known or suspected distribution or use of the SDK not in compliance with the requirements of this license, and to enforce the terms of your agreements with respect to the distributed portions of the SDK.

and this:

3. LIMITATIONS. Your license to use the SDK is restricted as follows:

a. You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble, or remove copyright or other proprietary notices from any portion of the SDK or copies of the SDK.

b. Except as expressly provided in this license, you may not copy, sell, rent, sublicense, transfer, distribute, modify, or create derivative works of any portion of the SDK. For clarity, you may not distribute or sublicense the SDK as a stand-alone product.

c. Unless you have an agreement with NVIDIA for this purpose, you may not indicate that an application created with the SDK is sponsored or endorsed by NVIDIA.

d. You may not bypass, disable, or circumvent any technical limitation, encryption, security, digital rights management or authentication mechanism in the SDK.

e. You may not use the SDK in any manner that would cause it to become subject to an open source software license. As examples, licenses that require as a condition of use, modification, and/or distribution that the SDK be: (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

f. Unless you have an agreement with NVIDIA for this purpose, you may not use the SDK with any system or application where the use or failure of the system or application can reasonably be expected to threaten or result in personal injury, death, or catastrophic loss. Examples include use in avionics, navigation, military, medical, life support or other life critical applications. NVIDIA does not design, test or manufacture the SDK for these critical uses and NVIDIA shall not be liable to you or any third party, in whole or in part, for any claims or damages arising from such uses.

g. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless NVIDIA and its affiliates, and their respective employees, contractors, agents, officers and directors, from and against any and all claims, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, fines, restitutions and expenses (including but not limited to attorney’s fees and costs incident to establishing the right of indemnification) arising out of or related to your use of the SDK outside of the scope of this license, or not in compliance with its terms.

It seems pretty clear to me.

Honestly, if W1zz just made a simple application and slapped nVidia's license on it, I think it'd be fine. It's shipping just the DLL part that's dubious because the license explicitly calls out the usage of the SDK being used in an application and not being just a subset of the SDK that's being provided.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So for my work I used a proprietary database that has package for basically the SQLite version of it that runs in a single service (versus distributed and in the cloud,) and I have to go through the exact same process to get it. It's a library, although not a DLL, it's a JAR that I can can use. Datomic only provides the current version of dev local and the only reason I would ever want an older version is because I'm too lazy to update all of the dependencies where it's used. Backwards compatibility is usually fine, so it tends to be a drop-in replacement. I suspect that nVidia designs their libraries the same way within a major version, which is why I find the need for multiple versions to be a bit dubious.

Either way, the utility isn't what I have an issue with. It's the distribution of license protected material. I'm not doubting the usefulness of what you're doing, I'm just not convinced that it's in line with the spirit of the license that came with it.


You pointing off what you think is important isn't the same thing as pointing out the language of the license. The license explicitly forbids redistribution outside of an application using it with licensing as strict as nVidia's license. That's the crux of the issue. These are the bits that concern me which has nothing to do with what you're mentioning. Modifications are called out in the license, but that's not the issue.


and this:



It seems pretty clear to me.

Honestly, if W1zz just made a simple application and slapped nVidia's license on it, I think it'd be fine. It's the shipping just the DLL part that's dubious because the license explicitly calls out the DLL having to be used by an application and not being just a subset of the SDK.

Except that you are missing a couple key points. EULA terms are ONLY enforceable if they are valid under the law. For example, making a demand to not "reverse engineer" is a hollow and unenforceable term as reverse engineering is a widely understood protected right.

I could keep going like that proving how much bullshit is in EULAs, not just from NVidia, but I don't feel the need to spend the next 4 hours typing up a dissertation.

Instead I'm going to sum it up:

TPU is not breaking any laws or civil legal code. TPU is violating no enforceable EULA stipulations, nor are they facilitating such from or for their users. TPU is not circumventing any copyright protections afforded to NVidia by standing law.

The objections in this thread are examples of people making mountains out of mole-hills and making problems where there are none because of their own ignorance.

@W1zzard
We both know you have copyright attorney's at the ready. If you have any doubts and have not done so already, consult. I'd bet my swinging cod they'll give you more or less the same rundown I have here.

I couldnt save the link, but my pixel phones news feed just popped up with an article thanking TPU for hosting the DLSS files, that did mention the theorised legal controversy

Was that NVidia doing the thanking? Wouldn't be surprising at all. TPU hosting the files has highlighted something of value to its end users that they have yet to explore themselves.

 

[Mussels]

No, i was just pointing out that random, unaffiliated websites have noticed and dont think its a legal issue themselves