this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
640 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
66584 readers
4165 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fuck? Why? Emulators are entirely legal and they could've won
Nintendo went after them for using (not distributing)
prod.keysto decrypt game titles and system firmware under 17 U.S.C. 1201 (2), which sidesteps having to challenge the legality of emulation directly. I guess Yuzu doesn't have the funds to fight them in court on that.How would they fight it if they had the money? Did they have a significant use case other than piracy?
Easy. Game preservation.
Game preservation is explicitly exclusided from the dmca true, but only only when the game needs online servers which have now been shut down.
So it would not work in this case at all.
On an unrelated note…
Not sure how your device let that one slip but I’m actually kind of sad it’s not a real word.
They settled because they actively endorsed and proliferated illegal piracy.
They couldn’t play that angle with what they were doing.
Well that’s unfortunate, because Nintendo has a terrible track record for game preservation.
Counterpoint: Fuck Nintendo
Is it piracy to play my legally purchased and backed up games on an emulator?
Edit: a lot of people responding to this are accidentally answering the question above. Yes, those are the things they would have fought if they had the money to go up against Nintendo.
To those saying that it is indeed piracy -- pretty sure the law has disagreed up to this point. Note that Nintendo didn't win this suit, Yuzu settled. No legal precedent set (yet).
You likely don't have any liability but thats why Nintendo sued them and not you
If you circumvent the copyright protection systems to do so, then under American law yes. If you don't like this, you have to campaign for change.
Do you believe there is a chance of success for campaigning for change?
Every few years, more things are added as exceptions to the DMCAs circumvention clause. There's a whole host of exceptions, and they are all exceptions in favor of people over companies. Those exceptions came about because people who care fought for them.
Do you have any specific examples and how long it took, or how much it cost? It seems farfetched to think it is feasible to counter the "anti circumvention technology" aspect of the DMCA.
Wikipedia has an entire list of anti-circumvention exceptions under the page for the DMCA. I have no idea how those exceptions came to be or how much money and time was involved to make it happen, but it does seem to be changing in our benefit over time.
How is it far fetched when there's a literal bunch of examples you can go find right now? You're basing your estimation on zero evidence and doomerism.
Try, apply yourself. Don't just assume.
If I'm as successful changing law as I am changing minds on the internet then doomerism is an understatement.
Yes.
Does it matter? I suspect that if that's what you did, you were one of very few people doing so, and the law doesn't require the absence of any possible legitimate use. In this case, something is illegal if it
You asked if there was a significant use-case. That's what it is, and why emulators have remained legal up to this point.
How many people take advantage of that use-case over piracy is a different point.
Also the law has not decided anything here, yet. As far as the law is concerned, emulators are still legal.
It's a use case, but I would argue that it's not a significant use case.
Emulators are still legal in theory, but I doubt that it is in practice possible to make an emulator for a modern video game system without violating some other part of the law.
And that's the answer to your question about what Yuzu would have fought if they had the money to take on Nintendo.
That's exactly what hasn't been determined, since Yuzu settled and it didn't go to court.
Because Nintendo is a vexatious litigant that weaponizes the legal system in an attempt to bankrupt their opponents.
Yuzu wasn't an opponent. They were literally selling hacking tools.
Yuzu provides a better experience for the user than Nintendo's hardware - it is a superior opponent.
Nobody has the money to beat Nintendo.
They agreed to delete, “all circumvention tools used for developing or using Yuzu—such as TegraRcmGUI, Hekate, Atmosphère, Lockpick_RCM, NDDumpTool, nxDumpFuse, and TegraExplorer,” and hand over any “physical circumvention devices” and “modified Nintendo hardware.
They know what their emulator was primarily used for. Key word here. Primarily.
They were selling hacking tools that used Nintendo's IP to do so. That isn't legal.
Having a legal use case doesn't mean they weren't breaking the law by profiting off of selling the tools.