Last I checked, you needed to actually own a switch and a downloadable version of the game to use yuzu... has this changed?
Oh, I didn't know you had to own a Switch. I thought you just had to own the game?
Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
331–340 of 709 posts
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#332> As a result, Nintendo ... is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down. When corporations like Uber violate multiple laws, do they get shut down? When Amazon treats its employees poorly, does it get shut down? When Google forbids manufacturers to pre-install competitor apps, does it get shut down? Well, it seems that as long as copyright is not infringed, everything is ok. Also it seems to me that Nintendo migh…
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. Unless the lawsuit is in bad faith and meritless (only a court can make that determination), there is no argument to be had about "lawfare". The only difference here and in other companies is that Nintendo actually follows through with their legal threats instead of just filing complaints they don't intend to take to court.
The determination by the "court" doesn't really matter here. The party with the bigger wallet wins, "bad faith" doesn't mean anything.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#333A ton of people seem to think the DMCA is the end of Yuzu, but I believe it's actually its salvation, particularily Section 1201(f): (1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying…
My impression was that EFF and the like were bearish on 1201(f) because of that last part, "to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title." and "to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title." because that essentially forecloses any practical application of 1201(f).
"infringement" in this case means traditional copyright infringement, not DMCA circumvention infringement. Legitimate users of Switch games will have a strong fair use case for this.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#334A ton of people seem to think the DMCA is the end of Yuzu, but I believe it's actually its salvation, particularily Section 1201(f): (1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying…
DeCSS was ruled to be a circumvention device. Yuzu will be treated the same.
People using such software without the intent of engaging in RE activities will not be granted the benefit these exceptions. You could legally create your own Switch emulator but distributing it to others outside the legal veil of a corporate entity will not fly.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
iirc they used a open-source emu on their snes/nes mini
Nintendo's NES/SNES emulators have always been their own in-house tools. The NES/SNES Classic consoles did run on Linux, and Nintendo published the operating system source code as required by the software licenses, appropriately. The emulators are not part of the source release, and very likely derived from the same ones used on Wii virtual console (possibly older, Animal Crossing had a NES emulator on the GameCube t…
My understanding is that The "Nintendo hired the iNES Developer" story is actually it's own myth!
The person referenced who Nintendo hired is Kawase Tomohiro.
The basis for calling him "The iNES Developer" is that, in a changelog for 0.7 of iNES, Marat Fayzullin - the developer of iNES - wrote: "Sound support completely rewritten, thanks to Kawase Tomohiro"
That is the entirety of the association. That single line in a changelog. Based on similar "thanks" lines it was probably because they reported some emulation issues and not because they personally rewrote the sound support for the emulator, but resulted in Marat doing so. It's actually interesting how these stories seem to change over time. The last time I heard this, the story was that Nintendo had hired somebody who contributed to iNES, which was at least technically true if a bit misleading, but it seems that now the story is that they hired *the* iNES Developer. Which seems particularly silly when we consider the basis is that 8 word changelog line.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. The whole point of emulation is that you want to play content for which the original hardware no longer exists. And so there is no harm being done to anyone. This situation is obviously quite different because Nintendo is being harmed.
> No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. It's not piracy to play a game that you've backed up on different hardware than the original developers intended.
My understanding is that it actually is (or at least probably is) illegal to create and play your own backups...
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe so (the Sony v. Bleem cases mainly ended up in favor of Bleem), but also I don't think anyone has tried since the DMCA. It looks like Nintendo is taking a 'trafficking in circumvention device' legal strategy as opposed to a strictly anti-emulator legal strategy.
DMCA was in effect the year before Sony first sued Bleem -- and it's notable that Bleem mostly won the lawsuits, but legal fees bankrupted them anyway.
The DMCA was in effect but not applicable to the case since the DRM scheme of the PS1 doesn't block access to the files of the disc, but instead simply attempts to block the usage of non DRMed media on legitimate PS1s.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's something hilarious about your framing of "get too big to be shut down". You actually said "if you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law". So someone builds a product that the public likes, something they demand that politicians allow, and somehow this is "too big to be shut down". Do you forget that modern democracies pretend that their authority derives…
Modern ( and ancient) democracies are not direct democracies. There are many reasons why popularity alone of the voting public does not translate into policy. The dangers of tyranny of the majority is well known, will of the people is a necessary but not sufficient reason. There are also some pre-requisites for a functioning democracy like a well-informed electorate which is questionable today at best.
You are correct, but so is the parent (although I wouldn’t have put it quite like that).
Laws are there to serve society. Some of the ways it serves society is when it restrains society, but people are not stupid and understand when they’re being unreasonably restrained. Unreasonably being the key word, as I’d like to think we’re all generally anti-murder around here, even if we can argue to death about things like AirBnB.
Let me put it like this: the laws of San Francisco (and other cities) protected Taxi drivers from competition, and by the late aughts the local taxi services here were godawful magnets for complaints every weekend that the relevant regulatory authority (the SFMTA) didn’t do a goddamned thing about. If you wanted to go out and enjoy a nice weekend night, the responsible thing was not to drive. But good luck getting home, and if you could get a cab, it would be filthy and the driver would unlawfully insist his card reader was broken (it wasn’t, and it never was, the card reader was probably the most reliable thing in that car given how little wear and tear it would have seen in life).
Uber didn’t walk into a well regulated transportation marketplace. They and Lyft drove headfirst into a marketplace where the existing laws and regulations were suppressing supply and killing the market, and not in service of the passengers (i.e. the voters). They won the battles that mattered which were the political battle by upending a status quo that had favored this shitty little taxi medallion system and the market battle by just being better at a price people were willing to pay than their competition.
Popularity doesn’t always translate to policy in a democracy, but it often does.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there. Nintendo is being a bully here, but what on earth does a monopoly on the market of your own platform even mean?
- Nintendo Switch hardware only runs Nintendo Switch OS -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OSes - Nintendo Switch OS only runs on Nintendo Switch hardware -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OS hardware - Nintendo Switch hardware and OS only run officially licensed Nintendo game -> Nintendo monopoly on games for Nintendo Switch and OS games - Nintendo Switch games only run on Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo monopoly on hardware t…
I am genuinely asking, what on earth do y'all think "monopoly" and "anti-trust" mean?
It's baffling to me because some users on HN grandstand so much about how making your own product or platform means that you are morally obligated to support any and every third party under the sun. But then the actual tech industry seems to be the direct opposite - if anything companies make lots of fanfare out of achieving basic interop.
Re: Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
#340A ton of people seem to think the DMCA is the end of Yuzu, but I believe it's actually its salvation, particularily Section 1201(f): (1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying…
DeCSS was ruled to be a circumvention device. Yuzu will be treated the same. People using such software without the intent of engaging in RE activities will not be granted the benefit these exceptions. You could legally create your own Switch emulator but distributing it to others outside the legal veil of a corporate entity will not fly.
I direct you to read my comment again and pay special attention to article (3).
DeCSS was not spared by it because the interoperability exemption applies only to software, not media like video or music.