557
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
557 points (99.5% liked)
Nintendo
18151 readers
67 users here now
A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.
Rules:
- No NSFW content.
- No hate speech or personal attacks.
- No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
- No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
- No console wars or PC elitism.
- Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
- All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here
Upcoming First Party Games (NA):
Game | Date
|
Emio – The Smiling Man: Famicom Detective Club | Aug 29 The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom | Sep 26 Super Mario Party Jamboree | Oct 17 Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025
Other Gaming Communities
- Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Games @ sh.itjust.works
- World of JRPG's @ lemmy.zip
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.world
- Patient Gamer @ lemmy.ml
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm just sorry for them. 2.4M dollars? How will they ever pay this? Do you think they will actually have to pay it fully?
They won't, they are an LLC. They can declare bankruptcy and close down the company. The actual people behind it are not responsible for paying, the company is.
I vote they put up a GoFundMe. They deserve the world and Sintendo decided to throw their slimy tentacles all over them.
If they went to trial they could have been blasted for way more. + Legal fees.
It's a bummer, but don't feel sorry for them. It was clear violation, they knew they were on thin ice, or should have known.
Violation of what?
Are you serious? You think the yuzu team is paying 2.4 mil for fun?
It's quite clear that emulation of Nintendo's private product is illegal and against tos.
Did I really need to explain that to you?
Edit you may have your opinion on IP law, but that's just an opinion . There's no way these devs didn't know they were in a grey area, at minimum.
Nintendo's ToS doesn't mean anything to people who never agreed to it. Someone can buy a fusee-vulnerable Switch and use tools to dump the
prod.keysand legally-purchased cartridges without ever agreeing to a single thing.Yuzu absolutely went into a gray area with not exclusively using pre-decrypted ROMs. That's where they opened themselves up to Nintendo's argument in the lawsuit.
Using a digital product comes with a tos. When you turned on the console the first time you agreed to it. When you used the cloud services you agreed.
The point is that the hypothetical user never used the console's ToS-encumbered software. Fusee bypasses the bootloader and jumps straight into a user-provided payload, which doesn't have any terms attached to it. Those payloads are capable of dumping
prod.keysand the data off the cartridges to an SD card.I mean, yeah, sure. If you never ever actually booted the Switch OS or any games on your emulator, you were never subject ot the ToS. I would wager that's a tiny minority of users though, no?
And are the cartridges not Nintendo IP?
They're NAND chips containing encrypted games soldered to a PCB and connected to the console through a proprietary data transfer interface. A cartridge is a glorified SD card, and you don't need to agree to any ToS to buy one second-hand.
I guess i, and Nintendo, and yuzu's legal team disagree with Lemmy on the idea that all this hoop jumping is free and open to do. Cracking encrypted content on proprietary hardware made with the express purpose of being used on fixed hardware with explicit TOS certainly seems like a violation.
I bet the original packaging of the game carts spoke to this, but I bet the cart itself doesn't.
I would guess that they settled because they would go bankrupt fighting it. You have no idea if you and their legal team are in agreement, as far as I can tell. Feel free to comment with proof to refute my guess, otherwise my guess is as good as yours.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Saying your opinion must be correct because Nintendo made an unfounded legal assertion and a small emulator dev team settled rather than lose even more money battling their army of lawyers is like saying everyone ever shot by the police must have been a life-threatening danger to them because they wouldn't have been shot otherwise. There is legal precedence in the US that emulators are legal because unless they're made with leaked or stolen proprietary data there's no reason for them to be with current law.
Nintendo's ToS is not the law. I don't know why you think that.
Lol I'm sorry you don't like corporate IP law. I don't love it either, I'm only maturely and realistically acknowledging reality.
You're right I don't know yzu's thoughts, but we can see their actions. You don't fuck with large IPs without readiness to back it up, so it was foolish for yuzu to be dancing on this.
Clearly the nuance of the hardware extraction made it a target of Nintendos lawyers.
If you wrre so sure this project was just like the "legal" emulators then we wouldn't be here would we?
Reality is that who has more money wins, not that Nintendo's claims are necessarily legitimate.
Which a development group should be well aware of.
It's not.
What is illegal - and what got the Yuzu team who blindly ran into it like idiots despite people warning them about this since ~forever - is making bank from emulating others' hardware.
In this case, Yuzu made so much money from their patreon that they created an LLC to handle the cash flow. That part in particular made it trivial for a rightsholder - like Nintendo - to show commercial purpose behind the Yuzu project and hence take its developers to court. It's how they got import injunctions against stuff like the R4 cards, too. Showing commercial purpose is trivial when bloody Amazon is selling your bloody physical product. Or in this case, if there's a whole LLC just to manage all the money you're making and blowing on coke/hookers (I don't even want to know how much money they siphoned off personally if Nintendo could instantly make them agree to >2 mil, they must have a lot of millions around).
That it is, but that's only grounds for losing online access and shit. Not the same thing as being open to a broadside from Nintendo's lawyers.
No, they were fully aware they were in fully illegal territory, IMO.
They have been warned about this frequently since they started their patreon, and recently there was some R4-like action with Switch emulator cards. Which again led to the whole commercial-vs-free discussion for emulators, and they doubled down on their approach and made a company.
IMO, what actually happened is that they set a ton of money aside (we can estimate they got 1.2mil, but I would estimated it at 2x++ that based on how quickly they accepted). They knew Nintendo would eventually sue them. They got the 2.4mil recompensation offer, this is significantly less than they actually made. And hid. So they're instantly accepting it to "cash out" the rest.
I doubt it's alot of millions. Their Patreon was earning 30'000$ per month.
It's likely that being a company they can manage this in a way that one indvidual couldn't.
I wouldn't call it a clear violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201, but it was a plausible one. I do agree that they would have been blasted for legal fees trying to figure that part out, however.
Nintendo had a leg to stand on, but it was highly dependent on whether the judge would find an emulator's primary purpose to be DRM prevention. A good judge that does research into the subject likely wouldn't find it to be the case, since the primary purpose is emulation and decrypting game titles is only a small part of that. Ending up with a luddite or corporate shill judge is always a huge risk, though.
Japanese IP law IIRC, not american.
They sued under the DMCA, though?