The never-ending battle between the litigious plumber and the emulation Hydra continues day by day, and these past days, Nintendo took action against more emulators forked or based on the original Yuzu emulator, which was taken down by Nintendo they sued the company behind the emulator and settled for 2.4 million back in February of this year.

Continuing with their actions, Nintendo has gone after more Yuzu-based emulators that have appeared in recent months, with some being those growing in popularity like Sudachi and Suyu, and others not being as popular but still being caught in the crossfire, like Nuzu, Uzuy and Torzu. While all of their respective repositories are currently offline, some appear to have been entirely deleted, and others do have the DMCA page appear on them while accessing the repository, which could mean that, upon receiving the DMCA notice, some of the developers for those repositories opted to entirely delete the repos themselves, and the others haven't either taken action or weren't able to.

Sudachi is one interesting case in this regard, as the developers behind it have claimed that a counter-action would be taken against the DMCA notice, and additionally, it was also mentioned that they intend on rewriting the code base for the emulator in order to work around the DMCA sensitive parts.

​

It is still unknown if Sudachi has indeed submitted a counter-claim against the DMCA notice yet, and what might come out of it.
In the meanwhile, Sudachi's website is still operational, as well as a repository mirror as an Onion link.

Source

 

[granville]

DMCA takedowns don't have the same sort of legal requirements that a proper lawsuit would. They're basically a letter making demands, though also with the "threat" of there being an eventual lawsuit escalation. Valid or not, the host then decides whether to follow through. Often times they just automatically side with Nintendo or whatever big corporation is making the demand as they don't want things to potentially escalate further.

And Nintendo knows that no one is going to attempt to actually escalate and fight them in court. Even if the case is against them, Nintendo would bury the person in legal fees. This is why Yuzu settled and bent the knee to their demands to avoid a lengthy legal battle. Even if they won (which could vary depending on the makeup of the court chosen), they'd be financially destroyed forever. Apparently the fine was actually more manageable than the legal fees. Unsurprising as this sort of thing would likely cost them tens of millions or more if they went to court. And they'd get none of it back unless they countersued and managed to win that counter.

It has also emboldened Nintendo to push against other projects they want to see erased. Hence why even the Ryujinx developers (despite their lesser popularity and being based in Brazil) are also nervous about this eventually affecting them. Their emulator is also hosted on github, so it's entirely possible for Nintendo to file a DMCA takedown on their repo. It would then be up to github to decide whether to allow it or not. There's every chance they would bend the knee there as well. They'd need to move to a different host if so.

 

[Lumpofcoal]

Nothing surprising. The original yuzu signed over all rights to the code as part of the settlement and as such, all forks are at the mercy of whether ninty wants to allow them to live, which they won't. Even if it goes to court, ninty will still win by virtue of the settlement. I hope the sudachi dev has money to burn, ninty will proceed to initiate legal due to the counter-claim. It's not that fighting back is wrong but in this instance, it's pointless. If there is anything "fighting" to be done, it should have been at the stage where ninty sued the original Yuzu. Even Yuzu's lawyers gave up. So here we are now, it is what it is.

Not a big loss though IMO, most of those forks just seem to serve as a backup for the original yuzu rather than being actively worked on - they might not even know how to.

 

[Captain-Z]

@granville

Didn't know about he community versions of totk but there is evidence that other games were working in yuzu before release and recommending people pirate prod.keys

 

[linuxares]

Nothing surprising. The original yuzu signed over all rights to the code as part of the settlement and as such, all forks are at the mercy of whether ninty wants to allow them to live, which they won't

Thats not how the GPL works. But someone have to fight them about it.

Sudachi, Suyu and Torzu are all being developed. Torzu for example also fork fixes from both projects and their own code as well.

 

[Captain-Z]

Nothing surprising. The original yuzu signed over all rights to the code as part of the settlement and as such, all forks are at the mercy of whether ninty wants to allow them to live, which they won't. Even if it goes to court, ninty will still win by virtue of the settlement. I hope the sudachi dev has money to burn, ninty will proceed to initiate legal due to the counter-claim. It's not that fighting back is wrong but in this instance, it's pointless. If there is anything "fighting" to be done, it should have been at the stage where ninty sued the original Yuzu. Even Yuzu's lawyers gave up. So here we are now, it is what it is.

Not a big loss though IMO, most of those forks just seem to serve as a backup for the original yuzu rather than being actively worked on - they might not even know how to.

Actually the DMCA noticed doesn't mention any ownership of yuzu, just that it circumvents the switch's TPMs

 

[Lumpofcoal]

Thats not how the GPL works. But someone have to fight them about it.

Sudachi, Suyu and Torzu are all being developed. Torzu for example also fork fixes from both projects and their own code as well.

My understanding is that the GPL can be revoked upon being transferred/bought over by another party. At the very least, it would only be valid for code done before said transfer/sale and not future development.

Post automatically merged: Jul 12, 2024

Actually the DMCA noticed doesn't mention any ownership of yuzu, just that it circumvents the switch's TPMs

Standard boiler plate. If it actually proceeds to legal. Ninty for sure will reference the terms of the settlement.

 

[Captain-Z]

My understanding is that the GPL can be revoked upon being transferred/bought over by another party. At the very least, it would only be valid for code done before said transfer/sale and not future development.

Yes that's allowed as long as all contributors (ie copyright holders) agree to it. But the settlement with yuzu did not transfer ownership of any code.

 

[Subtle Demise]

Yes that's allowed as long as all contributors (ie copyright holders) agree to it. But the settlement with yuzu did not transfer ownership of any code.

Yeah I don't know why people keep repeating that made up nonsense about Nintendo owning Yuzu, when that was NEVER one of the terms in the settlement. They must be thinking of the situation involving their takedown of the Mario porn parody that they actually did obtain the rights to in order to prevent distribution.

Post automatically merged: Jul 12, 2024

From what I've heard, Nintendo's main argument against Yuzu forks is that they require encryption keys to play Switch games, and Nintendo claims that requiring these keys violates the DMCA.

I find it hard to believe that every single emulator is in danger because of what one emulator does. Emulators are vastly different just like consoles are vastly different, and even if a US court were to rule against emulation entirely (unlikely as it is), this would not affect other countries which would be free to develop and distribute emulation software.

Plus, making emulators illegal would have dire consequences for third-party developers who wish to re-release older console games on new platforms. If Nintendo were the only one that could legally utilize NES and SNES emulation, that means Capcom and Konami couldn't release a Mega Man or Castlevania collection on a competing console without getting special permission from Nintendo (who is sure to say no).

However, emulators for consoles prior to the Wii/PS3 era do not use encryption keys, so it's hard to see how they would be in danger from a ruling on Yuzu.

Every emulator after like N64 requires cryptographic keys (even some older ones like SegaCD and Japanese PCs) that the user must obtain themselves. Nintendo is trying to get precedent to make all of those emulators illegal.

 

[ChaoticPumpkin]

Yes that's allowed as long as all contributors (ie copyright holders) agree to it. But the settlement with yuzu did not transfer ownership of any code.

On top of that, the license change would only effect subsequent distribution. Any version of the program before the change of license would still be GPL.

 

[Lumpofcoal]

Yes that's allowed as long as all contributors (ie copyright holders) agree to it. But the settlement with yuzu did not transfer ownership of any code.

My bad, I initially read it as a transfer of the code but it's actually transfer of the domain. However, I would still argue that GPL has been rescinded by virtue of the fact that Yuzu code is no longer allowed to be in public domain. In addition, Yuzu also straight up admitted to it being an illegal circumvention device as part of the settlement. Even though the settlement prohibits Yuzu specifically from distributing it, it still forms a legal barrier to others from distributing it, let alone something that has been admitted as "illegal". It doesn't make any sense that Yuzu would not be able to while others can. At least not in terms of future releases.

In other words, GPL has been de facto rescinded by virtue of the declaration of the "illegality" of yuzu and the court order for all code relating to it to be deleted.

As such, I'm not sure how sudachi is going to argue his case. He would have to argue against the same points that Yuzu lawyers tried and failed. Because if he were to be successful, then Yuzu wouldn't have needed to fold in the first place.

 

[J-Will]

WHY WON'T NINTENDO GIVE UP ALREADY?

 

[linuxares]

My understanding is that the GPL can be revoked upon being transferred/bought over by another party. At the very least, it would only be valid for code done before said transfer/sale and not future development.

Post automatically merged: Jul 12, 2024

Standard boiler plate. If it actually proceeds to legal. Ninty for sure will reference the terms of the settlement.

They can revoke it. But they cannot pull back code that was once under GPL. It doesn't magically mean all previous Yuzu code becomes theirs. Only from X date. All source code before date X is GPL licensed code.

EDIT: To add, the case never went to court, it was settled outside court. The source code is therefore not said to be illegal by any court.

 

[Lumpofcoal]

They can revoke it. But they cannot pull back code that was once under GPL. It doesn't magically mean all previous Yuzu code becomes theirs. Only from X date. All source code before date X is GPL licensed code.

EDIT: To add, the case never went to court, it was settled outside court. The source code is therefore not said to be illegal by any court.

Thank you.

It did go to court, just that they skipped trial by coming to a settlement which the judge approved.

I should have been clearer. When I said "illegal", I wasn't referring to a court declaring it to be so. But rather that the Yuzu team themselves admitted to it being so as part of the settlement, which the court subsequently entered in force and ordered that all code relating to it be destroyed. This is listed as a "finding of fact" in the final court judgement. In effect, it means that the judge is in agreement.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.11.0.pdf

4. Developing or distributing software, including Yuzu, that in its ordinary course
functions only when cryptographic keys are integrated without authorization, violates the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition on trafficking in devices that circumvent effective
technological measures, because the software is primarily designed for the purpose of
circumventing technological measures. Id. § 1201(a)(2)(A).

That's why I mentioned earlier that the fighting should have been done at the first stage. Such settlements where the defendant just straight up admits to it being "illegal" makes future cases on yuzu related matters harder to fight against. Not impossible, but harder. I wonder how sudachi is going to argue against those points when Yuzu tried but failed.

 

[The Catboy]

Very few end users here care about the legalities of all of this. Pedantically bringing it up all the time just makes you look like an unenviable simp.

One can understand legal shit and still take umbrage with it. The fact that Nintendo is going this hard on an emulator and continues to go this hard will make people annoyed, mad, upset, and so on. I know the legal team isn't the same as the dev team, but watching Nintendo's current business practices makes one wonder why they are investing so much into their legal team while games have been mid, boring, and uninspired. Seriously, TOTK was the biggest disappointment. Splatoon 3 is mid as fuck and already forgotten by the Big N.
Personally, I think Nintendo should have taken their victory and walked. This constant back and forth hasn't helped them or their image.

 

[Xzi]

What I'm saying is that TOTK probably wouldn't even require DLSS to run at a native 1080p 60fps on Switch 2 hardware. It should be capable of rendering at that natively using just the additional power available. DLSS could just potentially provide a push even beyond that.

The T239 Nvidia chip believed to be used in Switch 2 is roughly 4x more powerful than the Tegra X1 in the original Switch. This is without even factoring in DLSS. This performance is in line with it being around PS4 level or maybe a smidge higher (i'm being conservative here and not counting on PS4 Pro performance, let alone Xbox Series S).

Hard to say for certain. Largely depends on whether the textures themselves are set to 1080p, and whether or not Nintendo decides to limit max processor speed like they did with the X1. Memory bandwidth will also play a role. If it runs at an unstable 60 FPS native, might as well just use DLSS to give it that extra bump so frame rate stays constant.

 

[The Catboy]

What I'm saying is that TOTK probably wouldn't even

I don't know why but mood

 

[linuxares]

Thank you.

I should have been clearer. When I said "illegal", I wasn't referring to a court declaring it to be so. But rather that the Yuzu team themselves admitted to it being so, hence the court ordering that all code relating to it be destroyed. This is listed as a "finding of fact" in the final court judgement.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.11.0.pdf



That's why I mentioned earlier that the fighting should have been done at the first stage. Such settlements where the defendant just straight up admits to it being "illegal" makes future cases harder to fight against.

Since it never went to court, it's impossible to say what the proper outcome would be.

 

[Lumpofcoal]

Since it never went to court, it's impossible to say what the proper outcome would be.

It did go to court, just that they skipped trial and came to a settlement which the judge approved. It's both a judgement and a settlement. The case wasn't dismissed and settled between the two out of court. So as far as the legal consequences go, the court (or that particular judge) did agree with nintendo on its points put forth, one of which is the "fact" that yuzu is a circumvention device that violates DMCA. The judge is not allowed to approve such a settlement if he/she disagrees with or has doubts over the "facts" put forth in the settlement, it would have to go to trial.

Unfortunately, this would serve as one more bullet in ninty's gun as far as legal precedents go. Settlements should not be taken lightly, they can and will be used as a basis for future cases.

 

[urbanman2004]

Nothing surprising. The original yuzu signed over all rights to the code as part of the settlement and as such, all forks are at the mercy of whether ninty wants to allow them to live, which they won't.

The settlement between Nintendo and Tropic Haze, LLC (devs of YuZu) mentioned that they had to halt all further development of the emu, turn over any tools used to aid them in this process, not promote piracy nor sharing any roms, turn over the domains of both YuZu and Citra alongside their discord servers and cease distribution of either of the emus, and pay that hefty fine of $2.4mil. The settlement said NOTHING a/b Tropic Haze, LLC 'transferring ownership' of YuZu to Nintendo. Don't be such an azzhat who lacks comprehension skills and misinterprets the fine print in bad faith.

 

[linuxares]

It did go to court, just that they skipped trial and came to a settlement which the judge approved. It's both a judgement and a settlement. The case wasn't dismissed and settled between the two out of court. So as far as the legal consequences go, the court (or that particular judge) did agree with nintendo on its points put forth, one of which is the "fact" that yuzu is a circumvention device that violates DMCA. The judge is not allowed to approve such a settlement if he/she disagrees with or has doubts over the "facts" put forth in the settlement, it would have to go to trial.

Unfortunately, this would serve as one more bullet in ninty's gun as far as legal precedents go. Settlements should not be taken lightly, they can and will be used as a basis for future cases.

It went so much to court that the judge stamped the settlement. Basically everything the parties approved of got stamped. It bears no real meaning in the sence if it's legal or not. For example, is it really illegal with a cryptographic key? It's just a bunch of numbers and letters. What happens if one other devices (a computer for example) use the exact same cryptographic key for one of their softwares etc.

Nintendo would of course point to this settlement and previous trial with TX. But it's impossible to decide how a jury/judge would rule since emulators once been deemed legal. And now Nintendo try to make them illegal. Where is the fair use usage for example with cryptographic keys? If you get your own keys, shouldn't you be allowed to do what you wish with them for example?

So I sadly can't agree what you say that its currently illegal or not. If so, software cd copiers would be deemed illegal and the deAACS would suddenly be illegal according to a lot of movie studios.