News Notoriously litigious Nintendo sues maker of Yuzu Switch emulator, alleges it facilitates ‘piracy at a colossal scale’

[TheyCallMeContra]

Making unlimited copies and selling them?
Legal or no?

this feels like a bad faith question and very obviously Not the point being made about ownership.

 

[USAFRet]

this feels like a bad faith question and very obviously Not the point being made about ownership.

I'm just asking as that relates to "ownership".

If you "own it", you can do what you like, correct?
(within the law, or course. No driving the car through a storefront)

Now...you cannot create multiple copies and sell them, correct?
So...a limitation.

Call it what you want...ownership, licensing, whatever....
But the "ownership" is not unlimited.

 

[Sluggotg]

Before the DMCA, you could make backups of all your computer disks with no legal issues. You cannot sell or give away any copies. After the DMCA you can get busted for circumventing any form of copy protection. You can however make a backup if the Copy Protection is intact. That would include copying a VHS tape that is protected with Macrovision, (don't get me started on that company).

I stopped pirating back in the 80's. I originally had a C64, pirated a massive number of games, (and bought a massive number too). In 87, I jumped ship to the Amiga and did not pirate the Amiga games. I did spend a lot of money of on copy programs and copy hardware so I could back up my disks, (for both systems).

I don't think most of the people posting here believe it is OK to pirate and sell/give away games. That is illegal and wrong. But, Nintendo is messing with those of us who rely on Emulators, (and modern retro systems like the c64 mini or all the killer consoles from Analogue).
Emulators are GOD LIKE in my opinion. For my Amiga/C64 fixes I use the Cloanto's Amiga Forever and their C64 Forever. When you buy the software from them, they include a license for all the OS's for all the Amigas and C64s. They include everything, it is fully licensed from the copyright owners. Good Stuff!

 

[TerryLaze]

One problem: Yuzu hasn't done anything wrong. Nintendo has lost each and every time they tried this crap, and they will lose again

If nintendo is correct then yuzu does real time code breaking and that would be illegal, even if you argue that using the prod.keys file is legal, using it to crack the game in real time is still not legal.

Yuzu unlawfully circumvents the technological measures on Nintendo Switch games and allows for the play of encrypted Nintendo Switch games on devices other than a Nintendo Switch. Yuzu does this by executing code necessary to defeat Nintendo’s many technological measures associated with its games, including code that decrypts the Nintendo Switch video game files immediately before and during runtime using an illegally-obtained
copy of prod.keys

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

I'm just asking as that relates to "ownership".

If you "own it", you can do what you like, correct?
(within the law, or course. No driving the car through a storefront)

Now...you cannot create multiple copies and sell them, correct?
So...a limitation.

Call it what you want...ownership, licensing, whatever....
But the "ownership" is not unlimited.

Ownership is limited only by the law, and that is it

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

If nintendo is correct then yuzu does real time code breaking and that would be illegal, even if you argue that using the prod.keys file is legal, using it to crack the game in real time is still not legal.

Using it to crack the game in real time is not legal? I don't think this is true, but I am not a lawyer. You could be right. Even if you are, it doesn't matter: Yuzu devs don't do that. The end user does. Again, Yuzu did nothing wrong. Don't use the manufacturer of the knife, they did nothing wrong. Sue the killer.

 

[DSzymborski]

Using it to crack the game in real time is not legal? I don't think this is true, but I am not a lawyer. You could be right. Even if you are, it doesn't matter: Yuzu devs don't do that. The end user does. Again, Yuzu did nothing wrong. Don't use the manufacturer of the knife, they did nothing wrong. Sue the killer.

Except, if the allegations in the federal lawsuit are accurate, they didn't just sell the knife, the people involved frequently provided instructions on where and how to stab the victim. And Nintendo has had some significant success with their DMCA Section 1201 lawsuits. That making archival copies is a legal activity does not make anything connected with that activity also legal.

Nintendo may brandish their sabre quite a bit, but this is well past the stage at which they're simply trying to bully a party with a cease & desist letter. They've also got a pretty prominent regional law firm that specializes in business litigation involved; this isn't a nuisance lawsuit filed by staffers to try and make an annoyance go away.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Except, if the allegations in the federal lawsuit are accurate, they didn't just sell the knife, the people involved frequently provided instructions on where and how to stab the victim. And Nintendo has had some significant success with their DMCA Section 1201 lawsuits.

No. They didn't provide instructions on how to stab the victim. They provided instructions and said: This is how you hold the knife, this is how to cut flesh with it. They have no control over whether or not you cut up an animal to feed your family, or you kill a person.

See, dumping from the switch is not inherently illegal. Example: I go buy a music CD, pay for it with clean, legitimate money at a retail store, take home the CD clone the CD to blank CD, and store the original in a drawer, and just listen to the copy to keep the original in perfect condition. Making copies of prod.keys or dumping games is not illegal. You are just copying something you already purchased legitimately anyway. It's distributing them out that is illegal, something Yuzu devs have never done. Yuzu provides instructions on how to dump, not how to distribute.

 

[DSzymborski]

No. They didn't provide instructions on how to stab the victim. They provided instructions and said: This is how you hold the knife, this is how to cut flesh with it. They have no control over whether or not you cut up an animal to feed your family, or you kill a person.

Have you actually *read* the lawsuit? There are literal allegations of things that go well beyond this, including "how to distribute." If accurate, the Yuzu developers really made a mess for themselves.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Have you actually *read* the lawsuit? There are literal allegations of things that go well beyond this.

I haven't read it. Typically, lawsuits are 928,751,866,403 pages long so it would be hard for me to get through it. I don't even know where the lawsuit is. But I think Nintendo is suing as a knee-jerk reaction to numerous games being played weeks early on PC before switch release. I think if Yuzu was doing something illegal, or the dump guide was illegal, which has been there for years, Nintendo would have sued by now. You know how vicious they are about protecting their IP.

 

[DSzymborski]

I haven't read it. Typically, lawsuits are 928,751,866,403 pages long so it would be hard for me to get through it. I don't even know where the lawsuit is.

It was a rhetorical question. I had absolutely no belief that you had actually read it or had any familiarity with the extent of the allegations contained within.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

It was a rhetorical question. I had absolutely no belief that you had actually read it or had any familiarity with the extent of the allegations contained within.

Oh ok

 

[TerryLaze]

Using it to crack the game in real time is not legal? I don't think this is true, but I am not a lawyer. You could be right. Even if you are, it doesn't matter: Yuzu devs don't do that. The end user does. Again, Yuzu did nothing wrong. Don't use the manufacturer of the knife, they did nothing wrong. Sue the killer.

Yes, it is the YUZU devs that do that, as soon as the user provides all the files necessary (firmware, keys, etc) the emulator itself decrypts the game, that is a core feature and is not something the user does.
YUZU isn't a knife, it's a stabbing machine, pointed at the game, that does all the stabbing automated.

The court will have to decide on if decrypting a game is illegal or not, I have no idea either, but that's the main issue that nintendo has.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Yes, it is the YUZU devs that do that, as soon as the user provides all the files necessary (firmware, keys, etc) the emulator itself decrypts the game, that is a core feature and is not something the user does.
YUZU isn't a knife, it's a stabbing machine, pointed at the game, that does all the stabbing automated.

The court will have to decide on if decrypting a game is illegal or not, I have no idea either, but that's the main issue that nintendo has.

Yuzu doesn't do anything until the end user gives input. As the old adage goes: computers only do what you tell them to do. Go download yuzu and and decrypt a game. You can't until you have 3 files: the keys, the firmware, and the game. Yuzu provides neither.

If decrypting a game is illegal, who is doing the decrypting? Is it the developers or the end user. Killing innocent people is illegal. Who is doing the killing? The manufacturer of the knife, or someone else? Who is responsible for the victims death? Nintendo is trying to pin blame on the manufacturer. Again, As the old adage goes: guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I don't think this will come down to whether or not decrypting games is legal. Even if it's not, it isnt the developer who decrypts the games, it's the end user. If decrypting games is illegal, go after the people who are decrypting the games. This would not be the developer. Providing an application that can decrypt games is not the same thing as decrypting games, in the same way, manufacturing a knife which can be used to kill someone is not the same thing as killing someone.

I have said it a thousand times and I will say it again, Nintendo is suing the wrong person

 

[hotaru251]

Nintendo is going YOLO because if they can beat Yuzu in this...then all emulation is done for.

Yuzu (and i believe ryujinx) are all custom code reverse engineering...thats not illegal itself. (heck Nintendo used someone elses emulation to emulate their e-shop games iirc in past)

Yuzu doesn't use ANY Nintendo specific Intellectual properties (aka code they made) and that is exactly why emulation hasn't been successfully sued/stopped previously (Dolphin nearly did in past but they chanegd that and Nintendo can't do anything even agaisnt them & they are MUCH closer to Nintendos claim as they do require a specific file which is nintendos)

Yuzu in past had insider build w/ online play...but they remvoed it due to possible retaliation by Nintendo. (as the servers are theirs)

Yuzu's main website, their forums, & the subreddit specifically say its not a piracy thing & any talk of piracy gets you banned. (theres no link at all to any pirate content or guide on how to do it or anything)


Nintendo just sees TotK's huge leak & popularity as the best shot possible to attack and win agaisnt emulation.

Any win against Yuzu would shut down all emulation of Nintendo consoles past or future. Thats Nintendo's goal in end.


Emulation is NOT illegal.
How a person uses it is not on creators hands (else every gun/drug maker would be in jail and shut down).

That is going to be the main defense imho.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yuzu doesn't do anything until the end user gives input. As the old adage goes: computers only do what you tell them to do. Go download yuzu and and decrypt a game. You can't until you have 3 files: the keys, the firmware, and the game. Yuzu provides neither.

If decrypting a game is illegal, who is doing the decrypting? Is it the developers or the end user. Killing innocent people is illegal. Who is doing the killing? The manufacturer of the knife, or someone else? Who is responsible for the victims death? Nintendo is trying to pin blame on the manufacturer. Again, As the old adage goes: guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I don't think this will come down to whether or not decrypting games is legal. Even if it's not, it isnt the developer who decrypts the games, it's the end user. If decrypting games is illegal, go after the people who are decrypting the games. This would not be the developer. Providing an application that can decrypt games is not the same thing as decrypting games, in the same way, manufacturing a knife which can be used to kill someone is not the same thing as killing someone.

I have said it a thousand times and I will say it again, Nintendo is suing the wrong person

It doesn't matter what you think, or I, or anybody on this site.
What matters is what the judges will think, I was just saying that nintendo doesn't go after emulation, with this case, but against the decrypting of the games.

 

[TerryLaze]

Any win against Yuzu would shut down all emulation of Nintendo consoles past or future. Thats Nintendo's goal in end.

No it wouldn't, not even anywhere near.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

It doesn't matter what you think, or I, or anybody on this site.
What matters is what the judges will think, I was just saying that nintendo doesn't go after emulation, with this case, but against the decrypting of the games.

Then if the case is against decrypting games,
sue the people who are decrypting the games. This would not be the developer. Providing an application that can decrypt games is not the same thing as decrypting games, in the same way, manufacturing a knife which can be used to kill someone is not the same thing as killing someone. Nintendo is suing the wrong person

 

[Vixzer]

Just to clarify, nintendo does not move against emulators here, Yuzu is decrypting the games in real time which is basically real time cracking of the game.
At least that's what nintendo tries to push through here.

Yup, If I was someone creating an emulator I would use a basic rule : stay away from current Gen, simple right?

We all know how Nintendo is.

 

[TerryLaze]

Then if the case is against decrypting games,
sue the people who are decrypting the games. This would not be the developer. Providing an application that can decrypt games is not the same thing as decrypting games, in the same way, manufacturing a knife which can be used to kill someone is not the same thing as killing someone. Nintendo is suing the wrong person

Again, this is a matter of how the law sees it and not us, if it's not within nintendo's rights to do this then the court will just throw the case out.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yuzu doesn't do anything until the end user gives input. As the old adage goes: computers only do what you tell them to do. Go download yuzu and and decrypt a game. You can't until you have 3 files: the keys, the firmware, and the game. Yuzu provides neither.

If decrypting a game is illegal, who is doing the decrypting? Is it the developers or the end user. Killing innocent people is illegal. Who is doing the killing? The manufacturer of the knife, or someone else? Who is responsible for the victims death? Nintendo is trying to pin blame on the manufacturer. Again, As the old adage goes: guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The courts have ALREADY said this is not acceptable as a defense. The flat out found against Mosanto and then Bayer regarding Roundup weed killer causing cancer in end users. They tried to use that defense too. We just make the product. And we actually TELL people to take X and Y precautions because we know it might be carcinogenic. But we don't make people breathe it in or get it on their skin. That's their own fault for not wearing the necessary protection.

The courts at all levels straight up said basically you knew some people were going to use the gun to commit crimes but you sold it to them anyway. Guilty. So I can't see this being any different. If you sell something to somebody knowing ahead of time that it is going to be used in a way that causes harm, whether YOU cause the harm or not, your product does, and you are culpable for it. End of story.

Now, I'm not saying that the next decision will be the same, but it sure as hell falls under the same situational criteria. And, that decision has been backed up multiple times in both state and Federal courts, in multiple jurisdictions, with both liberal and conservative justices.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

There is just..... not a shred of truth in any of what you wrote. Sigh. I'll go through it.......

The flat out found against Mosanto and then Bayer regarding Roundup weed killer causing cancer in end users. They tried to use that defense too. We just make the product. And we actually TELL people to take X and Y precautions because we know it might be carcinogenic. But we don't make people breathe it in or get it on their skin. That's their own fault for not wearing the necessary protection.

They never told anyone to take X and Y precautions. You walked into a store to buy roundup, there was no representative of Monsanto standing in the isle to tell you to take precautions.

"Oh, but the warning was on the label".
"Ya, but they didn't read the warnings on the back"
"Oh, well that's their problem for not reading the warnings"

No, its not their problem. It's called fine print, and it's legal weight is only so strong. That goes with ANY fine print. The existance of fine print does not absolve you of fault. That's a much different situation than what Yuzu is doing. If there had been a Monsanto representative at each and every point of sale to let the customer know, Monsanto would have likely won. The case is important and sets a precedent: That you don't get to fine print your way out of culpability. This is VASTLY different from what Yuzu is doing. At this point, you're not even comparing apples to oranges anymore. This is apples to donkeys.

The courts at all levels straight up said basically you knew some people were going to use the gun to commit crimes but you sold it to them anyway. Guilty. So I can't see this being any different. If you sell something to somebody knowing ahead of time that it is going to be used in a way that causes harm, whether YOU cause the harm or not, your product does, and you are culpable for it. End of story.

KitchenAid knows at some point or another that one of their knives will be used to kill someone. The same can be said with all the kitchen knife manufacturers in the world. Yet I've never seen a kitchen knife manufacturer sued after someone was killed with one. Many people in the world have been killed with kitchen knives. It happens in domestic abuse cases all the time, yet the knife manufacturers are doing just fine and their products are still on the shelves.

Why? Because of what you said: KNOWING. Knowing = Ability to prevent. They know its going to happen, but they don't know specifically who, so they can't prevent: "John Smith from 2283 Pickle Avenue in Jordonsville, West Virginia (I just made up that address on the fly) is going to Slaughter his wife with one of our manufactured kitchen knives at 2:37 PM on January 12th, 2028 in the upstairs residence of their home on Pickle Avenue". How is the knife manufacturer supposed to know that? If they knew that, obviously they would prevent it. You can't prevent what you don't know. Oh, here's how they prevent it. Don't manufacture kitchen knives anymore so they don't get sued after someone gets murdered. Welp, looks like meal preparation is about to get a lot more tedious

If the manufacturer of every weapon used to kill someone could be sued for culpability, baseball would cease to exist. There would be no more baseball bats because baseball bats have been used to kill people. All the baseball bat manufacturers would be sued to the ground and the sport would cease to exist. MLB is a multi-billion dollar empire. Hammers have been used to kill people. It looks like construction work is about to get more difficult.... like... this is getting ridiculous already.... please.... just stop.... good grief

 

[ex_bubblehead]

As very few of you managed to stay on topic and some have resorted to personal attacks, this thread is now closed.