Nintendo is going after the development team of an emulator. A legal case was filed by Nintendo yesterday, alleging that the Nintendo Switch emulator, Yuzu, has caused damages to the company by allowing for its games to be played illegally before release. The suit also claims that the company behind the emulator, Tropic Haze LLC, makes a profit by facilitating piracy, noting that during the leak of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Yuzu's Patreon saw a large increase in users. Nintendo's legal team makes a case that Tropic Haze profits from and popularizes video game piracy.

NEW: Nintendo is suing the creators of popular Switch emulator Yuzu, saying their tech illegally circumvents Nintendo's software encryption and facilitates piracy.
Seeks damages for alleged violations and a shutdown of the emulator. pic.twitter.com/SGZVI6Cs0x

— Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) February 27, 2024

In the legal document, Nintendo refers to an emulator as, "a piece of software that allows users to unlawfully play pirated video games". They also assert that the Yuzu team is aware of the emulator's use in the context of piracy, and do not try to hide that aspect. In addition, Nintendo's legal team states that extracting your own keys from a Nintendo Switch console--a requirement to run any Nintendo Switch emulator--is illegal.

Source

 

[DJPlace]

Nintendo, I hope you read this one message.

Fuck off with ya. You making less than 1% of revenue isn't going to even be on your radar. Your demographic is still happily eating all the shit you come out with up so keep up the good work with that!

go on there twiiter and say that.

 

[linuxares]

go on there twiiter and say that.

They visit this very forum


(And probably laugh at comments where "pirates" are raging)

 

[Subtle Demise]

The way I see it, the phrase "general-purpose computing device" (i.e. PC) is the key.

So no more PC releases of classic games? I mean Shitendo thinks all emulation is evil right? That's the world they want

 

[Xzi]

They visit this very forum


(And probably laugh at comments where "pirates" are raging)

The fact that the law is not in Nintendo's favor here must've had them seething for quite a while. It still isn't in their favor with this Yuzu case, for that matter, which is why they're taking a different approach with a trial by jury. They're hoping to select mostly tech-illiterate jurors, but all it takes is one person armed with the knowledge that v1 Switch units can be exploited using just a paperclip to shut this whole thing down. By the letter of the law, Nintendo's anti-piracy/security measures must be EFFECTIVE for bypassing them to be considered illegal.

 

[ItsAshleyFTW]

So no more PC releases of classic games? I mean Shitendo thinks all emulation is evil right? That's the world they want

Meanwhile Nintendo uses emulators themselves in the Virtual Console, Switch Online, Mini Classics, even Super Mario 3D All Stars uses emulation. If that's not hypocritical I don't know what is.

Post automatically merged: Feb 29, 2024

all it takes is one person armed with the knowledge that v1 Switch units can be exploited using just a paperclip to shut this whole thing down

Expect paperclips to disappear from the shelves of your local Staples if Nintendo gets its way.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Meanwhile Nintendo uses emulators themselves in the Virtual Console, Switch Online, Mini Classics, even Super Mario 3D All Stars uses emulation. If that's not hypocritical I don't know what is.

Their defense is that they own the products, so they hold the right to resell/emulate them themselves.
It is hypocritical since emulators are usually a community-based project, but as long as Nintendo facilitates the emulators themselves they're fine from a legal standpoint.

Expect paperclips to disappear from the shelves of your local Staples if Nintendo gets its way.

"The paperclip defense" is likely not something Nintendo will be keen on sharing during the course of the trial.

 

[Xzi]

"The paperclip defense" is likely not something Nintendo will be keen on sharing during the course of the trial.

True, but it'll be one of the first things the defense attorney(s) brings up in their opening statements if they're smart.

 

[AdenTheThird]

if they're smart.

Nintendo's making quite a few assumptions about the defense.
But don't worry. It's not like the defense knows anything about how Switch hardware works or anything....

 

[Xzi]

Nintendo's making quite a few assumptions about the defense.
But don't worry. It's not like the defense knows anything about how Switch hardware works or anything....

It's only a matter of how much gets lost in translation from the Yuzu devs to their defense attorney, and from the defense attorney to the judge/jurors. They could easily get caught up in making coding-related arguments which would go right over the heads of many, but everybody understands how simple it is to manipulate the shape of a paperclip. In fact, their opening argument could almost go without words entirely if they just demonstrate the process in front of jurors on an unpatched Switch. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, would you consider that to be 'effective' security?"

 

[AdenTheThird]

In fact, their opening argument could almost go without words entirely if they just demonstrate the process in front of jurors on an unpatched Switch.

That would be hilarious.
Attorney: "Observe:"
*mods Switch in front of the jury with a paperclip*
"Nothing further, your honor."

 

[ItsAshleyFTW]

Their defense is that they own the products, so they hold the right to resell/emulate them themselves.

I mean technically they don't have full control over all their products anymore. Patents only last 20 years, so that means the patents for the NES, SNES, Game Boy (Advance), N64 and even the Gamecube have expired by now. Although I guess that only applies to companies making clone consoles, and not emulators. The source code probably is still copyrighted by Nintendo's IP department, and from what I can remember the copyrights will last 120 years (possibly longer since it was made in Japan).

Imagine waiting until 2103 to 100% legally create a NES emulator...

Post automatically merged: Feb 29, 2024

It's only a matter of how much gets lost in translation from the Yuzu devs to their defense attorney, and from the defense attorney to the judge/jurors. They could easily get caught up in making coding-related arguments which would go right over the heads of many, but everybody understands how simple it is to manipulate the shape of a paperclip. In fact, their opening argument could almost go without words entirely if they just demonstrate the process in front of jurors on an unpatched Switch.

I would be willing to donate my March 2017 unpatched Nintendo Switch that I got on launch day, to the Yuzu team to use as evidence in the courtroom if it meant saving emulation.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, would you consider that to be 'effective' security?"

The Xbox 360 needs to be opened up and soldered in order to be modded. The Xbox One/Series can't even be modded at all.

Nintendo really needs to take some pointers from MS if they truly want their consoles to be "unhackable."

Post automatically merged: Feb 29, 2024

That would be hilarious.
Attorney: "Observe:"
*mods Switch in front of the jury with a paperclip*
"Nothing further, your honor."

I could only imagine the headline:
"How a Paperclip Helped Save Emulation"

 

[linuxares]

The fact that the law is not in Nintendo's favor here must've had them seething for quite a while. It still isn't in their favor with this Yuzu case, for that matter, which is why they're taking a different approach with a trial by jury. They're hoping to select mostly tech-illiterate jurors, but all it takes is one person armed with the knowledge that v1 Switch units can be exploited using just a paperclip to shut this whole thing down. By the letter of the law, Nintendo's anti-piracy/security measures must be EFFECTIVE for bypassing them to be considered illegal.

Sadly at anytime this Bleem case might be thrown over since it wasn't fully watertight either apparently. We shall see (I hope they lose personally but I just don't trust the US Justice system)

 

[tomberyx]

I see no reason why Nintendo shouldn't sue Yuzo. If Yuzu steals Nintendo's work and sells it passively, then that's theft. Now the question remains whether it is theft or not, it could also be that Yuzu created Nintendo's work from scratch without copying anything, but that is very unlikely.

I think Nintendo will win the war but never the Battle...

 

[KungFuzion]

Nintendo can go stretch their mouth around Barry's love length. Corporate bullying at it's finest once again!

 

[tsam2]

OMG, I remember having a similar experience a long time ago. Memories to last a lifetime.

Some people don't think at all and just repeat what they read or heard somewhere. I even discussed the copyright issue with a lawyer and explained to me how companies try to change the law in their favor. But CEOs who see only numbers don't understand that they are a lot of cheap ass people out there that if they couldn't pirate they wouldn't buy a sh%t.

I still buy music cds. I have a good collection of 2000 cds and still growing. But I can't buy everything. So yeah, If I like just a song from an artist probably I will download it. But I can't even think copying or downloading something like Pink Floyd.

I remember a guy who bought "really cheap" (as he had told me) 100 no brand name blank cds. All of them to copy music. If it wasn't for these cheap cds and music on the internet, I asked him what cds he would buy. He told me not a single one.

Fun fact: long time ago I had downloaded 2 albums from a group called All Angels. I liked them a lot so in the end I bought all their discography, not too many though just 4 albums, but hey I BOUGHT them.

 

[Kitocco]

It gets better if you scroll down:
"Buying a license one time doesn’t give you the right to play it however and whenever you want to forever. You’re a thief. You’re purchasing the game just to resell it while you keep a copy for free. You are the problem."

In the end Nintendo will sue everyone who breathes next to a Switch.

I keep forgetting; in the 21st century a "purchase" isn't actually a PURCHASE, but a revocable perpetual rental - OH my bad, "license" - GRACIOUSLY granted unto paying customers until the Copyright Powers That Be decide to stop allowing access to it.

All the while actual, in-name-and-practice RENTALS (at lower prices than "purchases") & digital membership programs STILL exist.

Can we kill shrink-wrap EULAs & "forced arbitration" already?

 

[hatredg0d]

I see no reason why Nintendo shouldn't sue Yuzo. If Yuzu steals Nintendo's work and sells it passively, then that's theft.

See that is the thing, there in no Nintendo code in the emulator. Nothing was stolen or copied from them by the emulation team. They created software that works in a similar way to Nintendo's hardware, through reverse engineering, something that is protected and legal. The emulation software is not even functional without the user obtaining files from their own switch. Remember the who ps3 geohot thing, he released sonys keys directly instead of releasing a tool to let users get their own keys. Details matter

 

[ertaboy356b]

So no more PC releases of classic games? I mean Shitendo thinks all emulation is evil right? That's the world they want

Lol. So if it's not on a PC, it's not an emulator? I'm curious on what Nintendo would call the software that runs Virtual Console and NSO games. If people are actually able to inject their own ROMs into them and play them perfectly with little or no issues, I don't see how that's not an emulator. Of course, this is Nintendo we're talking about so we shouldn't be surprised.

Nintendo thinks general emulation is 'evil'. By general emulation, I mean those emulator where you load roms. Commercial emulators where the game is included does not seem to fit the description. To be fair, those are not even marketed as emulators. Let's just see what they will do once the case starts.

Post automatically merged: Mar 1, 2024

Sadly at anytime this Bleem case might be thrown over since it wasn't fully watertight either apparently. We shall see (I hope they lose personally but I just don't trust the US Justice system)

According to some reading, the bleem case seems to have proceeded before DMCA took effect. DMCA was passed before the bleem case but took effect several years after. There's also the case that drm via private keys does not seem to exist during that time so the case for decryption of roms has not been tested.

Post automatically merged: Mar 1, 2024

That would be hilarious.
Attorney: "Observe:"
*mods Switch in front of the jury with a paperclip*
"Nothing further, your honor."

Either that or Nintendo can show mod chips to make the Jury believe that the 'hackers' goes to such length to hack the device.

 

[Subtle Demise]

I keep forgetting; in the 21st century a "purchase" isn't actually a PURCHASE, but a revocable perpetual rental - OH my bad, "license" - GRACIOUSLY granted unto paying customers until the Copyright Powers That Be decide to stop allowing access to it.

All the while actual, in-name-and-practice RENTALS (at lower prices than "purchases") & digital membership programs STILL exist.

Can we kill shrink-wrap EULAs & "forced arbitration" already?

Finally somebody else gets it!! I was starting to wonder if I was the crazy one lol

 

[ertaboy356b]

Meanwhile Nintendo uses emulators themselves in the Virtual Console, Switch Online, Mini Classics, even Super Mario 3D All Stars uses emulation. If that's not hypocritical I don't know what is.

Post automatically merged: Feb 29, 2024

Expect paperclips to disappear from the shelves of your local Staples if Nintendo gets its way.

I still think the paperclip argument does not fly. The paperclip alone does not do anything but access recovery mode. You still need a sophisticated way to access the system keys.