Bank on it.Nintendo suing now makes me wonder if the Next Gen System will be 100% cross compatible to so they feel the need to get emulators out of the way ASAP.
This is a really good stream HoegLaw has made on the case. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this case go through it as he covers things very thoroughly, including the Connectix and Bleem Cases and whether they impact this one.
He mentions it when it's pertinent throughout the stream.Hmmm, I just watched the section that is labeled as discussing Bleem, but he doesn't seem to mention Bleem at all. He just answers a few questions from one guy. I'll have to dig in more later.
He mentions it when it's pertinent throughout the stream.
So register in some shady off-shore bank like some money launderer?
It's honestly easier to just steer clear of still-supported game consoles.
Basically all consoles from last gen on are gonna be considered current, at the very least.On that note I wonder how backwards compatibility will impact the scene? There's more financial incentive for companies to go after emulators now.
This makes sense since the higher the compatibility the less reason there is to pledge for the early access versions, or to provide incentive towards increased compatibility. The last time I pledged was around the release of ToTK. I just repledged as a sign of solidarity with the emulation community.Has been in a downwards trend for a few months now.
If anything, it seems they got a small spike since around the time the lawsuit news appeared.
Either due to all the attention, or from people who feel that nintendo should get fucked.
How are the damages calculable and traceable to Yuzu? Which roms are they hosting?So, I know it's a lot more fun to throw a temper tantrum about how awful Nintendo is, but they've got a case. Emulation, in and of itself, is not illegal. Nintendo is claiming that Yuzu is secondarily liable, however, because Yuzu is using the prod.keys to break encryption measures, which the DMCA in stating that you can't do. If that wasn't the case - let's say there's no protection on the games in the first place - Nintendo wouldn't have a case against them. The damages are also pretty obviously calculable and traceable to Yuzu.
Honestly, it's silly to get up in arms about this - why should they turn a blind eye to an emulator that's letting people steal their games? Sucks for the 1% of users who are playing their legitimately bought copies through Yuzu, but... eh.
How are the damages calculable and traceable to Yuzu? Which roms are they hosting?
Also where's your proof that only 1% of users are legitimately playing bought games?.
Also how is the emulator letting people steal games?
I don't have proof that 1% of users are playing legitimately purchased games, but I think it's common sense that most people are using Yuzu to do that
Is this a serious question?How are they "facilitating piracy"?
I would say 0.001%, and I think I'm still being generous with such percentage.
100%Probably. I'm sure even the 7 people who are using it legitimately realize that they're in the extreme minority.
but most people use it to steal software.
I don't know of any emulator that one can use to steal software. It's also impossible to do this with Yuzu. It can't dump or hack any software. You can only use Yuzu to play the stolen software if you want. Just like every other emulator in existence.
But you know what else can play stolen software? Anything. A chipped/hacked console. Windows can run any cracked PC game without the need of Steam or any other platform. Compatibility layers and virtual machines.
Maybe instead of banning all these, we could ban sites that host the stolen software or go after the individuals who dump and upload them?
That's a different argument though. I was answering to the generic "stolen software" argument above.The distinction Nintendo is making (which is legally the correct one to make if you want to sue someone for this) is that Yuzu uses the encryption keys to decrypt the software, which is a violation of the DMCA provision that says that you can't break the copyright protection on software. If they didn't do that, Nintendo's legal theory would have to change and their case arguably wouldn't be as strong.
How does the emulator steal software?100%
“How does it help facilitate piracy? It’s about game preservation.”
Maybe to a small bunch of nerds of a forum, but most people use it to steal software.
Don’t try and pretend you’re that naive.
Has anyone took Mame to court yet???Is this a serious question?
Is this a serious question?
100%
“How does it help facilitate piracy? It’s about game preservation.”
Maybe to a small bunch of nerds of a forum, but most people use it to steal software.
Don’t try and pretend you’re that naive.
You know its easier and cheaper to just mod a switch and play the pirated games there right? No Yuzu is needed in this process. Even if all switch emulators got nuked from the face of the earth tomorrow, Switch piracy would carry on strong as ever.100%
“How does it help facilitate piracy? It’s about game preservation.”
Maybe to a small bunch of nerds of a forum, but most people use it to steal software.
Don’t try and pretend you’re that naive.
Except by that logic pretty much every gun store owner is a murderer.Secondary liability means that they're essentially facilitating a copyright violation, even if they aren't directly providing roms or something like that. The emulator is letting people steal games by giving them an easy way to run pirated software. I don't have proof that 1% of users are playing legitimately purchased games, but I think it's common sense that most people are using Yuzu to do that. Either way, that is irrelevant as far as whether or not they're liable in this case - that's just color commentary on my part.
No one can steal software through an emulator.Maybe to a small bunch of nerds of a forum, but most people use it to steal software.
The distinction Nintendo is making (which is legally the correct one to make if you want to sue someone for this) is that Yuzu uses the encryption keys to decrypt the software, which is a violation of the DMCA provision that says that you can't break the copyright protection on software. If they didn't do that, Nintendo's legal theory would have to change and their case arguably wouldn't be as strong.
Secondary liability means that they're essentially facilitating a copyright violation, even if they aren't directly providing roms or something like that. The emulator is letting people steal games by giving them an easy way to run pirated software. I don't have proof that 1% of users are playing legitimately purchased games, but I think it's common sense that most people are using Yuzu to do that. Either way, that is irrelevant as far as whether or not they're liable in this case - that's just color commentary on my part.
This right here, and in turn make it harder for us folks just trying to play older games that these companies no longer sell. If they would release all the old nes/snes/ps1/gc games digitally with their own emulator software I and many others would happily buy them, shit they could do bundles with 50 games at a time or collections, like how sega did the ultimate genesis collection, complete with its own ui and emulator.I'm a huge fan of emulation and probably play more emulated (classic) games than I do normal games...
But frankly, emulating a current system is not the same as preserving classic systems. The good use of emulation is preservation. If you can't wait for the generation to be completed and are already emulating a current-gen system and therefore enabling mass piracy of new software titles, you're asking for a confrontation.
Except by that logic pretty much every gun store owner is a murderer.
I'm not familiar with exactly what Yuzu does, but the general rule is that if a company puts a measure in place to protect their software, any technological measure that allows them to access that protected software is illegal. It doesn't matter if they're using the keys to validate the game or if they reverse engineer the code to remove the encryption altogether - in either case, they're facilitating access to the protected work, and both approaches would be considered illegal.The decryption being a violation of DMCA is the part I'm fuzzy on as I'm not sure how these keys are being used. My uncertainty stems from whether or not simply using keys to gain access is a violation. The DMCA says it is illegal to "circumvent" encryption. Keys are used for validation, not circumvention, as I understand it. So my question becomes is using keys as they were designed in conjunction with the encryption in place actually "circumventing" that encryption. In other words, if Yuzu were "breaking" or "circumventing" encryption then they wouldn't need the keys at all.
I'm not familiar with exactly what Yuzu does, but the general rule is that if a company puts a measure in place to protect their software, any technological measure that allows them to access that protected software is illegal. It doesn't matter if they're using the keys to validate the game or if they reverse engineer the code to remove the encryption altogether - in either case, they're facilitating access to the protected work, and both approaches would be considered illegal.
I'm not familiar with exactly what Yuzu does, but the general rule is that if a company puts a measure in place to protect their software, any technological measure that allows them to access that protected software is illegal. It doesn't matter if they're using the keys to validate the game or if they reverse engineer the code to remove the encryption altogether - in either case, they're facilitating access to the protected work, and both approaches would be considered illegal.
There's been a long-standing legal battle against John Deere for essentially DRM'ing their equipment. AFAIK, it's helped to pass a few "right to repair" laws across the US. Most consumer laws have stated that if you bought it, you have the right to modify it in any way you please...even if you're cracking the encryption the product came with. But of course, very few individuals have the resources to challenge companies in court over this concept.
Well....that would have been something the judge would have ruled on, but since yuzu folded we won't know for sure. I think there are a lot of gray areas here.
And you steal the software because emulators like Yuzu exist.You don't use Yuzu to "steal software". The software is obtained through other means. Either 1) ripping the software from cartridges on your own device or 2) downloading from the internet. Neither of these functions are done in Yuzu.
Also knowledge of intent, which is why pretty much EVERY public forum about emulation bans discussion of piracy or where to get pirated games.Well, I guess it's good that murder and copyright aren't the same thing, then.
Edit: More seriously, you might be familiar with someone being an accessory to a crime? Aiding and abetting? Same general principle. The difference between those and the gun shop owner is how directly related the individual is to the act committed.
And you steal the software because emulators like Yuzu exist.
It’s akin to running a website that knowingly allows the sale of fake goods, but then claiming innocence because you didn’t actually fake the goods yourself.
It’s playground logic.
But that being the case, pirating is still illegal and Tropical Haze got caught with a ROM stash. Most likely it was for making sure they got the games up and running on Yuzu, but the clear push towards the day early thing made it obvious game preservation wasn't their goal.The fact remains. Nintendo turns off the network service on all it's old consoles. So, if you forgot to download all your games, you don't have access to them anymore.
Then the physical copies start becoming collector's items and get expensive.
So, they are just asking to get pirated.