Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu

https://overkill.wtf/nintendo-sue-yuzu-emulator/

by brandrick • 2 years ago

903 669 2 years ago

ramijames• 2 years ago

Can't say I'm shocked. Nintendo's lawyers are notoriously litigous.

I think lawyers in general are very often, yes, litigious. Perhaps you meant to say their employer and/or client, Nintendo, is notoriously litigious.

nicce• 2 years ago

Its not the lawyers but those who pay for them to do what is asked.

robbiet480• 2 years ago

I knew that Patreon would bite them some day. Any time money comes into a "offensive" open source project, whoever feels they are getting hurt can make a claim a lot easier. Somewhat surprised they haven't yet sued Ryujinx (the other Switch emulator project) for also having a Patreon.

A4ET8a8uTh02• 2 years ago

I am not part of that scene, but I am sympathetic to emulation. Is there a notable difference between Yuzu and other switch emulators? I wonder if there are other reasons than Patreon ( money changing hands ) or there were other considerations?

johnnyanmac11• 2 years ago

Not particularly. But it's the biggest fish so it's the biggest target.

deelowe4• 2 years ago

Yuzu has amazing compatibility. I'm guessing it's getting too good for Nintendo. Their concerns with TotK are not without merit. I played it on Yuzu (on PC) because it was a much better experience than on the switch. Within a few days of the game being out, there were resolution and fps patches which made the game run much better. That said, I'm not sure how Yuzu can be blamed for TotK piracy. Guessing Nintendo is throwing a hail mary here and hoping they can connect the dots during discovery.

I hope this doesn't spell the end of Yuzu, because I use it to play switch games that I own on my steam deck.

phone8675309• 2 years ago

Is there a notable difference between Yuzu and other switch emulators?

It's Nintendo. They sue everybody.

judge20202• 2 years ago

Making money is not a factor for fair use, but one factor is whether it’s a for-profit endeavor; you can be making money to fund an operation without doing so for profit. And even then, courts haven’t been too concerned with that aspect when other aspects are clearly met.

rightbyte2• 2 years ago

You need some sort of legal entity to receive the money, with ties to some real persons. It makes some corp. going after you so much easier, compared to trying to get to 'rightbyte' or 'judge2020' for doing git commits.

hn_acker5• 2 years ago

Making money is not a factor for fair use, but one factor is whether it’s a for-profit endeavor

Whether the use is for-profit is not a factor either. It's part of a factor. The first factor of the fair use test [1] is:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

"including" is not "limited to", so something as simple as whether the use brings in any revenue, whether through donations or sales, could be one consideration within the first factor. Whether the use is for-profit is another consideration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

crtasm11• 2 years ago

Patreon about page begins:

yuzu is a Nintendo Switch emulator capable of running many games! With yuzu, you can play such games as Pokémon Sword & Shield, Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Super Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Pokémon Legends: Arceus, Fire Emblem:Three Houses, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate — on your PC.

Regardless of the legal status of an emulator, I wouldn't list game titles if I were writing that copy.

jzebedee• 2 years ago

It's not illegal to play games that you already purchased and own. Piracy is just a convenient scapegoat to hobble emulation.

dathinab3• 2 years ago

it's fully legal to state what you are compatible that

titles are mainly protected by trade markes so you can freely mention and speak about them anywhere as long as you are not creating a situation where s judge might find that Nintendo customers might thing Yuzo made by Nintendo or any of the listed games are made by Yuzu or shipped by Yuzo or similar

slily2• 2 years ago

I'm actually surprised it took so long considering they were seeking crowdfunding while openly advertising the piracy use case and raking in thousands of dollars a month (now $30,000 - wow). Patreon rewards can be construed as profit-seeking; Patreon even charges sales tax if you donate under a reward tier (they don't if you go through the no-reward custom donation flow). It's cool to hate on Nintendo for being overly litigious these days, and they deserve that reputation, but with projects where piracy is clearly the main goal, and a significant amount of money is involved, I find it hard to sympathize. Even if it's technically legal, it strikes me as parasitic behavior.

Medox• 2 years ago

hopefully a lot of that money was already put aside for upcoming lawsuits

GabrielTFS9• 2 years ago

It doesn't change much legally to my knowledge, given that Sony v. Connectix was about a commercial, for-profit emulator (literally sold in stores) that directly competed with a console being commercialized at the same time (the PlayStation) and Sony lost in that case, with the 9th Circuit declaring it was fair competition and legal for Connectix to emulate PlayStation games.

MomoXenosaga• 2 years ago

Keep in mind that it's not about winning or losing in court. Most people don't have the money to fight. So they give up as soon as they get a letter from a lawyer.

Justice costs money.

tamimio• 2 years ago

Link is not working? Any archive link?

goryramsy• 2 years ago

Same here… HN doing what it’s best at…

enzanki_ars• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/LvxxW

theultdev8• 2 years ago

This is a pretty big case to watch.

Are there any cases of emulators being sued successfully?

A user being able to provide keys and a rom from which they could own or be homebrew doesn't seem to violate copyright to me.

edit: seems the consensus is once via legal fund attrition, but the case went to the emulator authors in the end.

monocasa14• 2 years ago

I don't believe so (the Sony v. Bleem cases mainly ended up in favor of Bleem), but also I don't think anyone has tried since the DMCA. It looks like Nintendo is taking a 'trafficking in circumvention device' legal strategy as opposed to a strictly anti-emulator legal strategy.

stonogo• 2 years ago

DMCA was in effect the year before Sony first sued Bleem -- and it's notable that Bleem mostly won the lawsuits, but legal fees bankrupted them anyway.

Natsu2• 2 years ago

It's funny, the game companies lost the emulator court cases. But the companies behind those emulators still went out of business.

xd1936• 2 years ago

Sony vs. Bleem! in 2001. Sony lost, but the cost still shut down the project.

CobrastanJorji• 2 years ago

Yep, Sony "lost," but they still killed Bleem and forced the creator into an agreement to, among other things, not make any more Playstation emulators. So really, Sony 100% won.

Bleem was a big deal, too. It let you just pop a Playstation game into a PC's CD-ROM drive and play it. When Sony finally nailed the coffin on them, they were working on a followup called "bleemcast" that would've let Playstation games be played on the Sega Dreamcast.

diggan• 2 years ago

bleem! (PlayStation emulator) was sued by Sony and was forced to close down because of legal fees, so I guess that counts as a success for Sony.

I seem to recall a bunch of ROM sites disappearing as well, but not sure if that's because they got sued or for other reasons. Some must have been sued and consequently shut down, so maybe not a bad idea (for the companies) to at least try?

dartos• 2 years ago

ROM sites are actually illegally distributing copyrighted content.

Emulators are usually not stolen and are just reverse engineered.

ender341341• 2 years ago

ROM sites are different in that they are distributing the copywrited media

The only 'emulator' cases I've seen be successful are due to the same, they didn't get in trouble for the emulator, they got in trouble for distributing ROMs. I wonder if there's some firmware code being distributed here? that's a common annoyance when it comes to using an emulator.

Feorn• 2 years ago

I think ROM sites were an artifact of the internet speeds we had access to early on. Where it wasn't practical to just download an entire library for an older console. Downloading an N64 ROM over dialup still took a little longer than an mp3, whole collections of them were out of the question. Even early broadband in many areas was limited to speeds where a single ROM was more practical to download.

Complete ROM collections were, and probably still are, available for most old systems as torrents and on usenet.

hellotomyrars9• 2 years ago

Sony also sued Connectix and lost. Sony purchased the rights to the emulator made by Connectix a year or so later. Connectix shut down 2 years after they sold the VGS to Sony but it isn't clear their fate was negatively impacted by Sony.

This move by Nintendo is typical and there is no intent for it to ever actually go to court. It is legal bullying/posturing. The ironic/hopeful part is that team behind Yuzu does have some financial backing and this is going to create goodwill for them and they might actually be able to put up a defense (perhaps with the EFF getting involved maybe?)

johnny99k2• 2 years ago

This won't matter. The goal will be to run them out of money. It's an open source project and they most likely don't have the capital to fund any sort of lengthy lawsuit.

theultdev8• 2 years ago

It matters for future precedence.

It can be used to win cases against other emulators and even shut them down with limited legal action.

borski• 2 years ago

That’s where approaching someone like the EFF comes in.

teeray2• 2 years ago

I really wish our system had some kind of financial handicap when it came to access to the legal system. Weaponizing the legal system to bankrupt people that would be found Not Guilty shouldn't be possible.

diego_sandoval• 2 years ago

Unless the EFF or a similar org supports them.

nodja• 2 years ago

The goal will be to run them out of money.

They're already making $30k/month on patreon and you can easily foresee that this legal action will cause a call to arms for even greater funding, if that was indeed their goal they could have targeted the much smaller ryujinx and set a precedent.

matheusmoreira2• 2 years ago

Are there any cases of emulators being sued successfully?

Sony lost all their cases in the past. They claimed they infringed copyright when copying PS1 BIOS for reverse engineering purposes, court ruled that was fair use as it was necessary to gain access to the unprotected elements of the console. The other case was some bullshit about advertising, they had the audacity to claim screenshots violated their copyrights. They lost in court but won in the market by bankrupting their competitors.

Who knows what's gonna happen in 2024 though? Felony contempt of business model seems quite well entrenched at this point. Company puts "IP" into their product and suddenly they get to control what you do with it and it's illegal for you to resist in any way.

Common sense says emulators are alternative compatible implementations of the original hardware which increases consumer choice. People should have every right to make an emulator, doesn't matter if it's an old console or one that's just been released. Emulators are competitors to Nintendo. If they don't like it then they should drop their "exclusives" nonsense and start releasing games on PC where they belong with better graphics and performance and all the bells and whistles that emulators provide.

Who knows what these courts are gonna decide though. The copyright industry basically buys these laws anyway, there's no reason to believe they will rule favorably to the consumer.

fzeroracer2• 2 years ago

Looking over the legal document, realistically, their arguments are so damaging from a software perspective that they should lose. IANAL, but from skimming the legal document:

The two major notions are that Yuzu violates Nintendo's copyright [1] by allowing people to play unauthorized copies [2]. In order to do so it allows for bypassing Nintendo's encryption (by taking in the keys, it does not embed the keys in the software) it falls under a violation of the DMCA [3]. Essentially, trying to argue that the keys are copyrighted. Additionally, they claim that every user that has either dumped Nintendo games they lawfully owned and play in Yuzu, or have pirated the roms and played in Yuzu have violated copyright and thus Yuzu should pay up [4].

[1] "In effect, Yuzu turns general computing devices into tools for massive intellectual property infringement of Nintendo and others’ copyrighted work"

[2] "In other words, without Yuzu’s decryption of Nintendo’s encryption, unauthorized copies of games could not be played on PCs or Android devices. "

[3] "Recognizing the threats faced by copyright owners like Nintendo in the age of digital piracy, Congress enacted the Anti-Circumvention and Anti-Trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), making it illegal to circumvent or traffic in devices that circumvent technological measures put into place by copyright owners to protect against unlawful access to and copying of copyrighted works."

[4] "On information and belief, Yuzu users have (1) dumped Nintendo games they have lawfully purchased and copied the game ROMs into Yuzu; and (2) obtained Nintendo games online from pirate websites and copied those game ROMs into Yuzu. Each such reproduction constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) for which Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 and injunctive relief under § 502"

Acrobatic_Road5• 2 years ago

"On information and belief" - legalese for "we have no evidence".

aidenn0• 2 years ago

Actually legalese for "by secondhand knowledge" so not "no evidence" but "no direct evidence"

monocasa14• 2 years ago

True, but therefore setting up for the kinds of information that they'd be looking for in discovery. For instance, perhaps Yuzu keeps telemetry data around?

monocasa14• 2 years ago

I'm not sure they're necessarily claiming the keys are copywritten (which honestly would be a terrible strategy), but instead that yuzu's ability to injest keys and encrypted copywritten works (decrypting them on the fly as needed like a switch would) constitutes a circumvention device banned by 17 US § 1201.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

fzeroracer2• 2 years ago

You might be right, I was connecting this with the Dolphin case which was making the argument that the keys are copyrightable. Essentially this is an extension of that, which is arguing that any circumvention is a violation of 17 US § 1201.

withinboredom12• 2 years ago

For the keys to be considered to fall under the DCMA, they'd have to be copyrighted.

anthk2• 2 years ago

That ability can be used as interoperaton in order to emulate the Switch properly for personal needs.

boolemancer5• 2 years ago

[4] "On information and belief, Yuzu users have (1) dumped Nintendo games they have lawfully purchased and copied the game ROMs into Yuzu; and (2) obtained Nintendo games online from pirate websites and copied those game ROMs into Yuzu. Each such reproduction constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) for which Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 and injunctive relief under § 502"

How on earth can they claim that the developers of Yuzu are responsible for copying done by their users?

withinboredom12• 2 years ago

Write a letter to your congress-person. Laws can say whatever they want them to say.

dubcanada• 2 years ago

You can claim what ever the hell you want, doesn't mean it will last longer then 5 seconds in court. It's very common people make outlandish claims, these then get dismantled by a judge and jury into usually 1 that sticks. Even though you went in with 50.

That's the whole point of court.

monocasa14• 2 years ago

Because "trafficking in a circumvention device" has it's own special carveout in the DMCA.

zerocrates• 2 years ago

There's a concept of "contributory" infringement: while you're not personally infringing the copyright, you know about the infringement and you're helping it, encouraging it, and so on. This is what the studios sued Sony under for the Betamax. Of course, they lost, and that precedent is helpful for Yuzu, though not a total slam dunk: what they wrote on their website in terms of marketing and instructions and so on could matter here, what the devs wrote to each other or publicly that might reveal their knowledge and encouragement of infringement could matter, etc.

More significant is that the Betamax case is from the 80s and precedes the DMCA. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are broad and have been interpreted broadly. The result is that the decryption is a problem all on its own, regardless of things like fair use that were a major factor in Sony's victory.

It's worth noting that Nintendo's first three claims are DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention claims, with the other claims of personal infringement by the developers and contributory infringement (where the part you quoted is from) being kind of tacked on at the end.

lenova• 2 years ago

Google Cache link:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps...

Springtime• 2 years ago

The legal document claims that over a million copies of last year's The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom were downloaded prior to the game's official retail release. As a result, the company is now seeking damages and is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down.

Quite the leap from existing as an emulator to inexplicably being held liable for some independent leak.

gjsman-10004• 2 years ago

Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential; and considering how easy it is to show the percentage of pirating users versus legitimate users (probably 95%+), it's not a good look.

There's also the issue that, unlike prior emulators, Yuzu risks running afoul of DMCA anti-trafficking provisions for circumvention devices and software that uses circumvention devices. So, while per se emulating the Switch might be legal, decrypting the games may be illegal (as would software that is useless if it is unable to do that decryption).

Edit: Strongly recommend reading my follow up comment explaining historical precedent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39530558

bentley2• 2 years ago

Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential…

Well, no. Pirated Switch games can be played on a hacked Switch or a flashcart with no emulation necessary. Common sense suggests emulation would be significantly more common, but can Nintendo prove that in court, or prove that the leak wouldn’t have happened without Yuzu’s existence?

Gigachad• 2 years ago

I'd say most piracy is people with an actual console that they have modded to load pirated games.

withinboredom12• 2 years ago

It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential

That. Literally doesn't make any logical sense. That's like arguing that if computers didn't exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential ... or if electricity didn't exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential.

monocasa14• 2 years ago

I mean, the switch has been hacked to hell and back and is more than capable of playing pirated games without any emulators. It isn't necessarily easy to show stats on pirating users since they obviously work to cloak that behavior from Nintendo.

summerlight• 2 years ago

unlike prior emulators, Yuzu risks running afoul of DMCA anti-trafficking provisions for circumvention devices and software that uses circumvention devices

This is interesting, it'd be great to have a link to explain this matter more deeply.

yamazakiwi• 2 years ago

There are other emulators besides Yuzu and they would still exist if Yuzu didn't.

burnte• 2 years ago

When you file a lawsuit, you make it seem like the biggest thing since WW2, because it'll be cut down in court over time to a more reasonable level.

realusername2• 2 years ago

There's actually multiple arguments with zero proof there.

- they didn't prove that Yuzu contributed to piracy (and since the amount of piracy tools on the Switch itself that's far from obvious that Yuzu is a first choice)

- they didn't prove that the leak itself lead to a loss of revenue. And that's also very hard of an argument to make considering that this game was a huge commercial success.

gknoy• 2 years ago

Does loss of revenue matter at all? It feels like it should, but I had thought that it didn't matter in courts.

bitwize3• 2 years ago

If a device's only use involves copyright infringement, it's illegal to sell or distribute in the USA. That's how they went after cable descramblers and, less successfully, VCRs in the 80s.

Since getting actual Switch game data necessarily involves violating the DMCA, Nintendo's lawyers will have an easy time showing that the only way yuzu can be useful is if the user violates copyright law, thus making the emulator itself illegal.

That is if this even makes it to court.

bitwize3• 2 years ago

It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case: if a television broadcast aired once and only once, never to be seen again, and the user could not see it as scheduled, they were legally entitled to use a device to record the broadcast and watch it at a later time -- once, after which they would presumably have to destroy the recording. And there are legal experts who believe even that is a yard too far.

Nintendo's case is a lot more airtight. To play anything on yuzu, you have to defeat the encryption on Switch games, itself a felony DMCA violation (irrespective of how good or bad the encryption is). Therefore, yuzu can only be used to play pirated material, therefore it contributes to copyright infringement.

"But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu.

wtetzner2• 2 years ago

"But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu.

Just because you can get a license from Nintendo doesn't mean the emulator isn't useful for development.

bentley2• 2 years ago

It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case…

That 1984 Supreme Court decision was a 5–4 ruling. Can you imagine the deleterious effect on the home electronics industry if, in 1984, a single justice had voted the other way, and the VCR had been ruled an inherently infringing device?

0xcde4c3db• 2 years ago

people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo

Licensed development only allows publishing Nintendo-approved games through Nintendo-licensed publishers who sell into Nintendo-approved channels, which the vast majority of stuff in the homebrew scene wouldn't qualify for.

a_vanderbilt5• 2 years ago

It is also fully their fault the game was leaked early. They released the game carts to buyers too early, and their system5 crypto scheme was already broken by the time the game came out. Yuzu didn't break system5, nor do they ship the keys needed to decrypt the dumped game files. They did release patches which specifically fixed issues with Zelda, and that wasn't a good look legally - but it isn't illegal to fix inaccuracies with the software.

GabrielTFS9• 2 years ago

I have not heard of anything indicating they themselves released patches fixing issues with ToTK - only that other people made patches for that which the Yuzu team refused to accept until ToTK release. I don't see how random people making patches for an open source project should make the project liable for the existence of the patches.

CaliforniaKarl• 2 years ago

I really recommend folks watch this, from a lawyer:

https://youtu.be/wROQUZDCIMI

“Why Are Emulators Legal? Dolphin vs. Nintendo, and the Fate of Dolphin Emulator”

gamepsys2• 2 years ago

This is truly awful for the gaming community at large. If this case makes a ruling then it will most likely have an impact on all emulation projects. If Nintendo decides to sue your open source project, how do you mount a legal defense?

dartharva2• 2 years ago

Awful for the emulation team? Yes.

Awful for the gaming community at large? Eh, Nintendo products are not as dominating as you think. It is only available in select countries and has a hundred million users at best. Compare that to PC and mobile gaming, it is almost negligible.

Though it would indeed be problematic if American courts manage to establish a precedent criminalizing emulators. That is indeed a real threat; American courts are not known for robustness or integrity.

Sakos• 2 years ago

Though it would indeed be problematic if American courts manage to establish a precedent criminalizing emulators. That is indeed a real threat; American courts are not known for robustness or integrity.

That's exactly why it's awful for the gaming community and honestly for human culture at large. Video game preservation isn't a thing without emulators. If Nintendo wins this, it means open season on every (major) contributor to an emulator and every emulation project. It means the end of the thriving emulation community and anybody interested in contributing except for a handful who are willing to risk being sued and/or live in a place where the US justice system has no reach.

And it's not like Western Europe is particularly friendly to anything or anybody that circumvents DRM.

a_vanderbilt5• 2 years ago

Adversarial interoperability is at risk should the circumvention argument be entertained by the court. Don't want a competitor making something compatible even though they are legally allowed? Just protect it with "effective" measures and they aren't allowed to even try to be compatible?

The Switches system1-6 crypto schemes weren't terribly good. system5 even weakend it drammatically and trapdoored them into being permenently weaker. Problem is what constitutes an "effective" anti-circumvention according to the DMCA is not defined.

bakugo• 2 years ago

I hope Nintendo loses because it would be extremely harmful to emulation and software freedom as a whole if they didn't, but at the same time, I hope this knocks the whole "for-profit emulator" practice down a peg for a while. I think this is the same emulator that at one point tried asking people to pay a monthly subscription to play online.

cylemons2• 2 years ago

Well in the famous Sony vs Bleem case in which Bleem won, Bleem was a fully commercial company selling their emulators. It's just that they created it in such a way that you still needed to own the ps1 game disk and insert it into your dreamcast.

lrvick• 2 years ago

I for one have exclusively used yuzu to play backups of games I legally purchased on a computer that can render them with higher frame-rates and quality than official switch hardware.

This is my legal right, and Yuzu provided open source code to make this task easier for me.

Nintendo is looking for a scapegoat here for their wasted investment in DRM technology.

bassiek3• 2 years ago

It's not about the 16fps frame drops, it's about the experience. Enjoy IT.... or find us in COURT !

egypturnash• 2 years ago

Huh, guess I better go make sure the copy on my Steam Deck is up to date. Not that I've actually bothered acquiring a single Switch ROM, there's so damn many neat little mid-sized games on the thing.

michaelmrose4• 2 years ago

If anything this lawsuit makes it difficult to morally justify purchasing Nintendo hardware and supporting them. Having really enjoyed the first Zelda game on an emulator I would otherwise have really considered it.

favorited3• 2 years ago

So you played their game on an emulator, and you "would otherwise have really considered" paying for their products (but you didn't). How are they losing out by alienating you?

MyFedora5• 2 years ago

Nintendo lost out on future game and console sales from that person.

michaelmrose4• 2 years ago

I bought prior generations of Nintendo consoles. I had not considered current consoles. I recently reconsidered via discovering current games via emulation and am now put off by present behavior. What did they gain? historically downloading a small file has been a poor predictor of people's willingness to spend $20 let alone $400 for console and game.

Also historically emulation has been teaser because they tend to trail console release by years and only gain good support by the time present generation is passe. Probably the biggest issue here is emulation is unusually good because nintendo released gamecube 1 2 and 3 and their latest effort is weak enough that PC actually plays at a higher res.

iAMkenough• 2 years ago

Just my take, but they've ensured the Switch and games I bought from them will be the last. I prefer to use my hardware keys and game carts on PC for higher resolution.

GrabbinD33ze69• 2 years ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Nintendo caught using an open source emulator for the switch, without any sort of credit to the authors after suing? If so, I have no empathy for them.

TillE2• 2 years ago

Canoe (their SNES emulator) is definitely their own creation, it's very limited and can mostly only run the games they've released with it.

I think it has some similar bugs to ZSNES, but that's just because they're both crappy low-accuracy emulators.

Mad_ad• 2 years ago

iirc they used a open-source emu on their snes/nes mini

NobodyNada• 2 years ago

Interestingly, their NES emulator uses the file format of the freeware INES emulator (which became the de facto standard format for all NES emulators, and of course for distributing ROMs online).

At the very least, this indicates that Nintendo definitely relied on resources and documentation from the NES emulation community. But it also raises questions as to why they used the INES format as opposed to some internal format of their own: was it just because they wanted to use a spec they found online instead of writing their own, or did they pirate their own games to test (or even ship)?

sureglymop• 2 years ago

I recall something like that when they released those mini consoles like the mini NES (NES Classic). But looking into it now, it seems that only used OSS software (linux, busy box, alsa, etc.).

lmm• 2 years ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Nintendo caught using an open source emulator for the switch, without any sort of credit to the authors after suing?

Majesco Entertainment published some switch games made by Mistic Software, which used an open source emulator without credit and in violation of its license (and therefore were infringing copyright). Atari was somehow involved as well. Nintendo had no involvement, unless you consider them responsible for not doing a thorough enough license audit of every company that publishes Switch games or something.

Aissen• 2 years ago

unless you consider them responsible for not doing a thorough enough license audit of every company that publishes Switch games or something.

That's the thing with closed platform, you can't have your cake and it too.

throwaway345353• 2 years ago

You're probably thinking of this:

https://www.eurogamer.net/did-nintendo-download-a-mario-rom-...

Lammy4• 2 years ago

Speculating here but it feels like part of Nintendo's beef is the popularity of PC form factors that look like a Nintendo Switch. Most notably the Steam Deck but there are loads of them.

In 2022 Nintendo starting taking down Youtube videos showing Steam Decks running Switch games: https://www.resetera.com/threads/nintendo-started-blocking-v...

And last year went after Dolphin (GCN/Wii emulator) as soon as they announced plans to be listed on Steam: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36090755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36100732

jsheard4• 2 years ago

Amusingly Valve themselves released an official trailer for the Steam Deck which showed Yuzu installed on the homescreen.

It was quickly taken down and re-posted without any references to Yuzu, probably after a panicked email from legal.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-edits-steam-deck-trailer-to-re...

andy_ppp2• 2 years ago

I can play Switch games on Steam Deck!?

dev1ycan• 2 years ago

I mean Valve literally had a trailer with a nintendo emulator as an app installed... Valve doesn't need to do RND for its games because they can just use whatever is on steam that is playable on the deck plus a ton of games from nintendo consoles via emulators as a selling point.

freedomben4• 2 years ago

Nintendo could do the exact same thing if they made their platforms open like Steam does. That the switch is limited to only Switch games is entirely a choice they made because their whole existence they've been all about proprietary and locked down.

viraptor• 2 years ago

It would be amazing if Valve stepped up with legal funds/protection there. They do get money from people buying SteamDecks for emulation and well... free publicity if they take on Nintendo.

jonny_eh2• 2 years ago

That flies in the face of what Valve did TO Dolphin. It was Valve that proactively reached out to Nintendo before putting Dolphin in Steam. Of course Nintendo responded "please don't", so Dolphin got blocked.

hx82• 2 years ago

I don't think this is likely. There is a convincible future where Nintendo publishes more and more games outside of their hardware platforms, so Valve needs to keep good business relations with Nintendo.

Ekaros• 2 years ago

On other hand after sale of device emulation does not pay... And selling games is where they earn money. Fight for emulation is useless legal fight for them and they are not org build for litigation.

johnnyanmac11• 2 years ago

Valve doesn't really benefit that much financially from emulation though. Steam deck profit margins are probably razor thin given the cost of the competition (many of whom are in China on top of it all).

carlosrg2• 2 years ago

Valve can't step up because they would lose.

pipeline_peak2• 2 years ago

If that’s true, I wonder if the Switch successor will be a lot similar.

carlosrg2• 2 years ago

In 2022 Nintendo starting taking down Youtube videos showing Steam Decks running Switch games: https://www.resetera.com/threads/nintendo-started-blocking-v...

What are they supposed to do? Leave videos about piracy of their own IP untouched?

It baffles me how people believe they have a fundamental right to pirate Nintendo software without consequences.

skotobaza• 2 years ago

You can legally dump your cart and use it anywhere.

troupo• 2 years ago

Emulation isn't piracy. It can be used for piracy, but emulation itself isn't.

pmx• 2 years ago

You can just as easily run pirated games on real hardware as you can a steamdeck, and vice-versa. You're conflating emulation and piracy. Emulation does not mean piracy as it is perfectly legal (and moral) to dump a game that you own so that you can play it on your preferred hardware.

gremlinunderway• 2 years ago

Won't someone please think of Nintendo? Poor, poor Nintendo?!

Jevon232• 2 years ago

The majority of HN makes a living from software that by nature can’t be pirated, so they have little sympathy for people who work on software that can be pirated.

widowlark• 2 years ago

I play my switch games on my PC completely legally. All the games I play are owned by me, and all of them were backed up using my own switch and my own prod.keys.

Is that piracy?

codedokode• 2 years ago

As a result, Nintendo ... is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down.

When corporations like Uber violate multiple laws, do they get shut down? When Amazon treats its employees poorly, does it get shut down? When Google forbids manufacturers to pre-install competitor apps, does it get shut down? Well, it seems that as long as copyright is not infringed, everything is ok.

Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there.

ambigious7777• 2 years ago

Man, the US copyright system is broken :^(

extheat• 2 years ago

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. Unless the lawsuit is in bad faith and meritless (only a court can make that determination), there is no argument to be had about "lawfare". The only difference here and in other companies is that Nintendo actually follows through with their legal threats instead of just filing complaints they don't intend to take to court.

acyou• 2 years ago

If we don't like companies abusing their power, we can complain and decide not to buy the products of companies doing that sort of thing, and support their competitors. There's only so far courts takes you, for a consumer company the real trial is most definitely in the public court of opinion.

rymiel• 2 years ago

The determination by the "court" doesn't really matter here. The party with the bigger wallet wins, "bad faith" doesn't mean anything.

justinclift4• 2 years ago

Yeah, it's a pretty stark illustration of "we have enough money to fuck you up, and are very willing to do so". "Might makes right" in action.

Your monopoly point is an interesting one. Wonder if there's an actual legal case there, as Nintendo have done a lot of this bullying over the years.

mattmaroon2• 2 years ago

No, there isn’t. Companies choose to put games on Nintendo, many games are available on multiple consoles including Nintendo, and depending on the generation Nintendo is not even always the biggest player. There’s no illegal monopoly.

One is certainly allowed to have a monopoly over their own products, that’s what trademarks and patents are for.

It’s hard to argue a game developer is forced to play ball with Nintendo.

dheera• 2 years ago

I'd love to start a country with no extradition treaties that is a safe harbor for companies like this.

Kranar2• 2 years ago

There were tons and TONS of ride sharing apps that got shut down as Uber was becoming popular due to regulatory violations: Sidecar, Juno, Poparide, Heetch, Taxify, and there are probably hundreds that got shut down in local markets.

Plenty of companies get shut down for regulatory violations, or employee mistreatment. Pointing at some extreme outliers is nothing more than a form of selection bias.

fcsp3• 2 years ago

Why didn't Uber though? Is it just enough money to buy the right lobbyists and lawyers?

accurrent• 2 years ago

The issue is large corporations tend to go unharmed.This is in part because of the fallout from people loosing there jobs. Imagine all of google or uber getting fired. How many people loose livelihoods.

magnetowasright• 2 years ago

Hey, let's be fair; those copyright infringement laws also only protect corporations!

earthwalker99• 2 years ago

The definition of capitalism is literally a system of economic relations that prioritizes the right to leverage one's existing capital to accumulate more capital, above everything else and indefinitely.

filleduchaos6• 2 years ago

Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there.

Nintendo is being a bully here, but what on earth does a monopoly on the market of your own platform even mean?

hraedon• 2 years ago

This is the theory that people (on HN and elsewhere) have used to argue that Apple's App Store represents a monopoly that should be broken up. It makes no more sense here than it does in that context.

devit2• 2 years ago

- Nintendo Switch hardware only runs Nintendo Switch OS -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OSes

- Nintendo Switch OS only runs on Nintendo Switch hardware -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OS hardware

- Nintendo Switch hardware and OS only run officially licensed Nintendo game -> Nintendo monopoly on games for Nintendo Switch and OS games

- Nintendo Switch games only run on Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo monopoly on hardware that runs Switch games

(Apple and iPhone are in the same situation)

Compare to the situation with Windows:

- x86 hardware can run any OS, including Linux and Windows -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although Windows and Microsoft keys are often pre-installed

- Windows can run on any x86 hardware (and ARM I think?) -> no Microsoft monopoly, although they don't release source to port to other CPU architectures

- Windows can run any software from anyone at no charge -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although they can favor their own software

- Windows software can run on any OS, such as Windows or Linux with Wine -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although one can argue that having an OS API without an open-source implementation induces lock-in and creates a partial monopoly

datbn2• 2 years ago

This is not a case of a company that does something massively useful but then does a (relatively to the size of the company) small illegal thing on the side. The whole raison d'etre of Tropic Haze LLC is to, allegedly, break the law.

justinclift4• 2 years ago

Are you saying console emulation is only used for breaking the law?

bossyTeacher4• 2 years ago

Welcome to the real world. Either you are powerful enough to change the law or you have to follow whatever law exists

thomastjeffery• 2 years ago

Monopoly is literally the point of copyright. That's its explicit purpose.

Their entire case rests on the presumption that the DMCA protects Nintendo's monopoly over not only distribution, but playback of its console game software.

tetrisgm3• 2 years ago

I would love to see OSS communities like Internet Archive or founders who are pro open source support them.

Emulators are legal. Defending your hobby project in court is infeasible without patrons.

Nintendo has no leg to stand on legally speaking, and there's a precedent waiting to happen.

As for the emulator itself, I don't see any argument that the Yuzu team used "illegal means" (internal SDKs, whatever their equivalent of a DLL is, etc).

A thought for the Ryujinx emulator devs, who are also making an excellent Switch emulator (sometimes more performant than Yuzu). They must be having a really stressful day.

kevingadd3• 2 years ago

The last time I tried to use Yuzu or Ryujinx it was still quite difficult. I had to get out my switch and physical game cartridges and manually dump a bunch of decryption keys and game files. It is absurd that Nintendo is trying to claim these emulators are piracy tools or intended for piracy when they don't seem to do anything to make it easy to play a pirated game copy.

theshackleford7• 2 years ago

Most people just google for a dumped copy and your up and playing in minutes (as long as it takes to download.)

Switch piracy is massive. Almost everyone I know is doing it. I’m not, but I still emulate because switch performance is poo. So I buy the game, and then emulate it in 4K/60, it’s how I finally finished BOTW.

Brainspackle• 2 years ago

It took me 15 minutes from downloading Yuzu to playing Mario Kart on my PC. You're doing something wrong

SamuelAdams• 2 years ago

Nintendo has no leg to stand on legally speaking, and there's a precedent waiting to happen.

Don't be so sure. From the article:

Emulator tools aren't inherently illegal, but the way in which Yuzu is being actively used and promoted is what Nintendo appears to be objecting to here.

So it depends on what is actually in the case. At best, Yuzu needs to simply update some of its marketing material. At worst, they need to shut down and open under a new name / LLC, while also updating marketing material.

jsheard4• 2 years ago

Nintendo has no leg to stand on legally speaking, and there's a precedent waiting to happen.

IANAL, but my understanding is that while emulation is unambiguously legal in the US after Bleem vs. Sony, an emulator which decrypts games is maybe not legal under the DMCA circumvention rules, and those have never really been tested in the context of an emulator. The Bleem case happened shortly after the DMCA was enacted, but PS1 games weren't encrypted or otherwise protected from being read by anything besides a PS1 so Bleem didn't have to circumvent anything. That seems to be the angle Nintendo is taking here, that Yuzu is the equivalent of something like DeCSS since it has the ability to circumvent their DRM scheme.

m-p-32• 2 years ago

AFAIK, the decryption keys to use the ROMs are not distributed with the emulator, and you need to retrieve these on your own from software licenses you possess.

catapart2• 2 years ago

Nah, there's no circumvention here, on Yuzu's part. There may be parties involved in circumvention, but the emulator neither aids nor publishes any aid for that. The emulator REQUIRES a user to first have a legitimate copy. If the user illegally obtained that copy, they didn't obtain it via Yuzu, and they didn't use Yuzu to get around the encryption that is in the file. The emulator is just using the key on the file, the same way any application - including the Switch OS - has to. That's not "circumvention", that's "usage". If the key should not be able to be collected, for use on the file, then it's not the Yuzu emulator that collects the key. It's whatever ROM dumping/packaging solution a bad actor is using.

If it ever made it in front a jury, it can be summarized as a big company trying to sue a little company out of existence because the big company doesn't like that the little company is executing the big company's code. But, unfortunately for the big company, executing someone else's code - even without their permission - is not illegal. Nintendo has the resources to sue torrent hosts and take on individuals involved in sharing networks. They have the resources to find the problem and fix it. But they're not using those resources to solve the problem; they're using those resources to scare lawful citizens into inaction because that's a cheaper target. There should never be a legal reward for that kind of scheme.

But, honestly, this should never make it to trial. There are zero merits for argument, here.

rasz• 2 years ago

precedent waiting to happen

no need, Sony already got us one. Bleem and VGS were a big business, Steve Jobs himself advertised VGS during Macworld 1999 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfu-xOGr1U&t=9m0s

Sony sued Bleem and lost in court

Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

Sadly court case legal fees bankrupted Bleem, Sony later bought VGS from Connectix, and hired Bleem programmers.

tetrisgm3• 2 years ago

I am familiar with both. I think the fact that Nintendo still went ahead and this will likely have repercussions means that the precedent isn't enough of a deterrent.

catapart2• 2 years ago

Agreed. A sensible enough judge could throw this out on summary judgement, circumventing the opportunity for Nintendo's lawfare. All of Nintendo's points have been tried, so there's really no need to bring this into argument. Even if all of their claims were true, they're not alleging anything illegal. Take it to court, ask for summary, and strengthen the legal defense for this kind of stuff. I really hope they don't roll over, even if nobody can blame them for doing so.

skupig• 2 years ago

(A)to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure;

If this is what Nintendo alleges yuzu facilitates, does Nintendo have a case?

Reimplementing the security measures seems like a reaffirmation of the security measures, not an impairment.

commandersaki• 2 years ago

IANAL and I've never used a switch emulator before, but if you have a feature for supplying keys to play proprietary games then I believe that constitutes as bypassing a technological protection mechanism. However, if that same feature is used to allow supplying self-signed keys to play custom software/homebrew, and there's no other way to do this, then it might be murky.

russfink• 2 years ago

It feels like a claim against free speech. Yuzu makes an emulator and states it can play Switch games. That is a statement. If others illegally trade binaries, that’s not the emulator’s fault. By attacking them, it feels like the only thing “wrong” was making the emulator available. Caveat - IANAL.

racl101• 2 years ago

Of course they are.

jamesear4• 2 years ago

The only comment of someone saying they had used Yuzu for piracy has been flagged, and is no longer visible.

This might HN readers a skewed perspective on how much Yuzu is used for piracy.

I have many acquaintances/friends in different circles, with the means to pay, who use Yuzu for piracy.

There are dedicated forums of people who coordinate on how to do this.

Emulation is great as a means to study or play backups, but its also fair that Nintendo has legitimate business interest in curtailing this.

IANAL, and have no idea how their case against Yuzu developers will go.

MyFedora5• 2 years ago

I don't think Nintendo's argument that Yuzu's primary use case is piracy holds any merit. Nintendo is quite literally a part of the reason why people pirate Switch games they already own.

What do you have to do to legally play Switch games on Yuzu? Oh, idk...

* Jailbreak your Switch.

* Dump your decryption keys.

* Dump your games.

* Never update your Switch ever again.

* Pray Nintendo doesn't shove an update down your throat.

* Void your warranty.

* Hope Nintendo won't brick your Switch.

How many people would use Yuzu legally if it weren't for Nintendo's anti-consumer practices? Nintendo can't just argue that Yuzu is made for piracy when Nintendo pushes people to piracy who legally own the Switch and Switch games in my opinion.

infotainment2• 2 years ago

I feel like you’re undermining your own argument here. Yes, it’s exceedingly complex to “legally” play your own games on Yuzu. This bolsters the argument that Yuzu is primarily targeting users of pirated content, because essentially no one would bother doing all those steps you listed.

zucker424• 2 years ago

Hammers are used for theft, as well. Even if Nintendo's business would benefit from emulators not existing[1], it doesn't mean we should ban emulators (or create laws which allow multinationals to sue open source emulator projects out of existence).

[1] which is not necessarily true

jamesear4• 2 years ago

I understand your argument, and perhaps a similar one will be made to the courts.

For some people, if a tool has a single legitimate user, and otherwise haa illegitimate users, then the tool should be allowed.

For others, if the tool is mostly used for illegitimate means, then the tool should be banned.

Where the law lands in this case will be partly based on these values, and the benefits/harms to all parties.

I don't know enough about the case, but I don't think it's as clear cut as a hammer.

gertop• 2 years ago

Seriously it's just bizarre how obtuse HN can be when it comes to piracy.

Nobody is dumping their own games. Very few buy the switch games they emulate.

The following usual claim is "it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android". What kind of asinine argument is that?

Then there's the "emulation isn't illegal", which is probably the only sound argument.

But that isn't the issue here. The issue is the authors are now making over 500k/yr from their emulator, whose only purpose is to pirate games that are still commercially available.

zucker424• 2 years ago

"it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android"

I understand if you disagree with this argument (I don't know if I'd endorse it wholeheartedly), but I don't see how it is asinine. The wider context here is that there are people who believe in "general computing", i.e. the idea that users should retain full control over computing devices and software they buy.

The philosophy of companies of companies like Nintendo is that when you buy a game from them, you are buying the right to play the game in exactly the way they want. If they could make modding illegal, they would (it is in Japan, to my understanding). This runs counter to the idea of general computing, where you should be to play a game you buy in any way you want, including modding, or playing on a different device, etc.

So to return to the point, the argument is that by refusing to sell their games to users of other platforms (as well as their other actions), Nintendo is working against the goal of general computing, and therefore it's not worth feeling sorry for them when people pirate the game. Phrased differently, people who don't own a Switch have no way to play the game besides pirating, and people should be able to buy games separately from devices.

Another fundamental argument here is that hardware/software walled gardens which are enforced by anti-circumvention and copyright laws are basically anti-competitive monopolies.

tombert2• 2 years ago

Yuzu is open source isn’t it?

Nintendo can’t be completely incompetent here; if they get Yuzu shut down someone will inevitably fork it, and they have to know this.

Presumably this is a play to try and establish precedent. They know that this lawsuit means nothing in itself, even if they win, but it can then be used to go after Retroarch or Higan or Mupen64 or Dolphin. This is bad.

catwoe3• 2 years ago

I honestly cannot wrap my head around the need for an LLC. It's an open source project, why would you need a company?

tombert2• 2 years ago

IANAL, but if there's a risk of being sued by a big corporation because you're making a product that they believe is stealing from them, wouldn't it make sense to shield yourself personally from being sued?

Like, if I write a piece of software that does something innocuous, such as indexing files or something, then I probably wouldn't bother getting any kind of LLC, but I'm very unlikely to get sued over that. Nintendo, however, is famously litigious, has made their stance on emulation very clear, and has no problem going after individuals who dare to defy them. I think doing all the development through an LLC can limit Nintendo going after the individuals.

Klonoar2• 2 years ago

If you’re accepting money somewhere, an LLC has potential advantages. It’s not an outlandish idea at all.

frio2• 2 years ago

Open Source doesn't necessarily mean free of charge, but even when it does (most of the time), plenty of people still choose to pay for open source products today (eg. Red Hat). A product being open source doesn't mean the people working on it shouldn't be paid somehow; in particular, Yuzu do early releases and other closed-source-ish things (which is one of the reasons Nintendo is able to bring something to court here).

freedomben4• 2 years ago

By ensuring there's no funding of the project, they can cripple it and ensure it will always be far behind the mainline product. It will also scare a lot of people off who don't want to risk getting wrapped up in a lawsuit for their weekend hobby

joemi3• 2 years ago

Presumably this is a play to try and establish precedent.

Of course it's to establish precedent. They can't file a case against "Yuzu and any future Switch emulators that don't exist yet". But that doesn't mean that it means nothing in itself. A victory against an emulator would be somewhat of a deterrent and would likely reduce piracy somewhat, at least for a little while.

Root_Denied2• 2 years ago

It's worse than bad, Nintendo's argument seems to boil down to "decryption = circumvention", even if you have a legit keys.prod file from your own system. The full text goes into detail about how Nintendo thinks that using a decrypted keys.prod file is circumventing their DRM.

There's so many second and third order consequences from a legal precedent for that it boggles the mind, and I'd hope that any judge that understood that should dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice. My fear is that it goes the other way and an injunction is successfully put in place against Yuzu.

atum47• 2 years ago

It's unbelievable how much I loath Nintendo these days. Hard to believe I use to love them growing up.

I got a Nintendo switch last year from Walmart. The f*ing came used (apparently someone in the store played some Zelda in it, put it back in the box and sold to me as new). Walmart said they couldn't do anything when I emailed them about the issue. Anyways, the switch came with no games. Nothing. Zero. So, naively I subscribed to the Nintendo online service, which I believed would be like Xbox game pass. Not at all. The service only let you play online. The only thing i got out of it was some SNES emulation.

Moves like that and the ones this news cover pushes fans away.

Kranar2• 2 years ago

Sounds like you have an issue with Walmart. Why would Nintendo be at fault because you bought an opened package?

As for your other comment, you can buy a Switch bundled with games or without games. Looks like you either bought the standalone console or the person you claimed sold you the used Switch took the game.

infotainment2• 2 years ago

Walmart has like the most lenient return policy imaginable (as you evidently found out). Why would you not have just returned your previously opened Switch at the regular returns counter?

throwawayk7h• 2 years ago

Don't forget that Nintendo put Gary Bowser -- a man in a wheelchair, with two kids -- in prison for a year. Now he owes 30% of his income to Nintendo for the rest of his life. He made Switch mod chips.

Until Nintendo walks that back, I will pirate all future nintendo games and donate the cover price to Bowser's gofundme.

mitthrowaway2• 2 years ago

I am not a lawyer but a prison sentence doesn't seem like a possible outcome from a civil lawsuit. That must have been a criminal case against him, which means he was prosecuted by the state / the Crown, rather than Nintendo. I don't know the details though.

theshackleford7• 2 years ago

Nintendo did no such thing and you’re talking complete nonsense.

npteljes2• 2 years ago

No issue that you described comes from Nintendo. And you could have downloaded ~100 free games from the eShop.

https://www.dekudeals.com/games?filter%5Bprice_range%5D%5Bmi...

crtasm11• 2 years ago

That list is misleading you. Just looking at the first page I can instantly spot:

Assassin's Creed - not free, must own the full price game collection.

Animal Crossing: New Horizons Island Transfer Tool - not a game.

BLAZBLUE CROSS TAG BATTLE SPECIAL TRIAL - a demo.

Capcom Arcade - free to download but you need to buy the games within.

Control - time limited demo of a fullprice single-player game. requires internet access.

Coloring Book titles - arguably not games.

Crunchyroll - not a game.

Cyber Protocol Prologue - appears to be a demo.

F-Zero 99 - great game, requires a paid Nintendo subscription.

...and a load of free-to-play titles that manipulate people to spend money.

noirbot• 2 years ago

Not that there aren't plenty of good reasons to hate Nintendo, but you're mad at them because Walmart committed fraud selling you one of their products, and then you didn't look up what something they sell does before you bought it and you're made it didn't live up to your unfounded expectations?

It's not like you can't buy games online through the Switch store, and I'm sure Walmart would have sold you games. It's also not as if all Nintendo consoles used to come with free games and they stopped doing that. Maybe for a special edition version, but not as a default.

frio2• 2 years ago

Nintendo Online is something like $33/year where I live; Xbox Games Pass (the version with actual games) is $263.40 (the version with a much more limited subset of games is $155.40).

I assume the price difference is similar in the USA; the two products -- at least to me -- seem quite clearly different.

theshackleford7• 2 years ago

“Walmart did a thing and I can’t perform basic product research before purchase and this is nintendos fault somehow”

good stuff champ.

Sirikon• 2 years ago

Pirate everything Nintendo produces.

Cub3• 2 years ago

Yep, this, they've been so anti-consumer for so long.

Janicc• 2 years ago

The funny thing is that I really would've liked to own a switch but my absolute hatred of Nintendo has kept me from doing it

kevincox3• 2 years ago

Personally I don't want the physical hardware. But I would be happy to buy the games if they just ran in PC ...and Nintendo wasn't a giant asshole.

Of course if they started selling their games for PC that may be a sign of enough change for me to reset my asshole status for them.

theshackleford7• 2 years ago

I’m sure there is no world in which you wouldn’t find an excuse to a justification to something for nothing.

stuckkeys• 2 years ago

I jailbroke the original switch with unpatched gpu exploit. I had also bought few games with it. I try to setup parental controls and all the sudden the device is banned. That made me mad. I bought the device. They require internet service for parental controls and set play time. Nintendo is a giant penuz. i hope their content gets pirated into oblivion after this scenario ( going after yuzu ).

matt3210• 2 years ago

You can bump it off github with a lawsuit but you cant stop an open source project from being built if developers want to build it.

thih9• 2 years ago

Steam deck and other handheld PC platforms should help here.

End result should be: emulator being legal as it is now, with ROMs being easy to purchase and download via official sources. This sounds like a dream; but given GOG’s success I guess it could actually happen.

holoduke• 2 years ago

I have to admit. I am using it a lot. And my 8 and 4 year old sons as well. We do have a switch with some games. But the pc with the Yuzu emulator can play many games in 4k 60hz. Only possible since the nvidia 40 series. The games load faster and its easier to install cheats. Its time for Nintendo to release a new switch. One that can only be emulated once the 6080ti is out.

zucker424• 2 years ago

Two paragraphs into the legal complaint[1], Nintendo says such BS as:

A video game emulator is a piece of software that allows users to unlawfully play pirated video games that were published only for a specific console on a general-purpose computing device

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/709016504/Nintendo-of-Americ...

joemi3• 2 years ago

Why is that BS? It's true. It's not the only use of an emulator, but it's the primary use.

zucker424• 2 years ago

A more accurate rewording of Nintendo's statement (keeping their point of view):

A video emulator is piece of software that allows a user to run a video game on a platform different from that for which is was written. Many people use emulators to play unlawfully obtained pirated games.

Wording something as definition implies that the statement both contains no falsehoods and is complete.

Saying that the purpose of an emulator is to play pirated games is not true. I use an emulator to play Super Smash Bros Melee on my computer, with the ROM obtained from the disk I own. People have modded the Super Smash Bros Melee game to allow for online play, something that would be impossible without an emulator. People used emulators to find a bug in Ocarina of Time that would allow them to beat the game (played on original hardware) faster.

But the statement is written to confuse a non-technical fact finder into thinking that the only purpose of an emulator is to play a video game without paying for it, or to help others to do so. And it's done so because that Nintendo doesn't believe that you own the game you buy from it.

catwoe3• 2 years ago

Why do you need an LLC to run an emulator project?

bahmboo• 2 years ago

So when it gets sued you have some protection personally. But doing crime with the LLC probably "pierces the veil" to some extent. IANAL.

iteria• 2 years ago

They probably forsaw this coming and wanted protection in case of a lawsuit.

sircastor• 2 years ago

I feel like there ought to be a sliding scale of cost associated with filing a law suit. If you're a very large company suing a very small company, it should be very expensive to file. Expensive enough to make your lawyers encourage you to think really hard about whether or not this is actually a threat to your business.

Of course, applying that to the real world would obviously fall apart quickly. It's not hard to think through loopholes.

It just seems to easy to crush a small company/group who are just doing something you don't like.

catwoe3• 2 years ago

I guess it's a matter of whether you own your hardware (and included software) or just own the hardware and a license to use the software that comes with it in a certain way.

deminature• 2 years ago

I wish they'd offer a legal avenue to play Switch games at 4K/60 instead of 720p/20-30. Anyone looking for a higher fidelity experience than the 2017 Switch hardware is able to provide is forced to use software like Yuzu to enable it. Even Sony has started porting their crown jewel games to PC to enormous commercial success, allowing players with high-end hardware to legally enjoy a higher fidelity experience, but Nintendo is stuck in the past.

xnx• 2 years ago

I've read rumors, and it seems very plausible, that Nintendo's next console might be able to play Switch games at higher resolution and/or framerate.

bigpapikite• 2 years ago

That's probably the case (as I don't know what else would make it worth buying), but the ultimate problem with Nintendo will still remain. They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. Microsoft took the plunge first, but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. Turns out if you make a quality game and make it widely available people will buy it (surprise). But they're married to the idea of restricting how their titles are played, which is only going to continue to turn people off.

dartharva2• 2 years ago

Emulators are a legal avenue.

pipeline_peak2• 2 years ago

Nintendo is now seeking a trial by jury

Nintendo is clearly relying on the fact that the average person would assume emulators are illegal.

Also a Patreon account is a poor argument.

EMIRELADERO4• 2 years ago

A ton of people seem to think the DMCA is the end of Yuzu, but I believe it's actually its salvation, particularily Section 1201(f):

(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3)The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

"Independently-created computer program" in this case being Yuzu, "other programs" being Switch games.

redder23• 2 years ago

GitHub created this defense fund after they came after youtube-dl. Not very Micro$oft, but they will probably help when it comes to that, but so far they did not file for DMCA takedown in GitHub. Maybe they did and Gihub changed the rules and requires some court judgement to take things down first?

ls6126• 2 years ago

Small nit, they did file a DMCA takedown, MS took it down at first, then reinstated it a week or so later with a message basically saying "sue us we dare you". The issue at stake was a different one though (whether youtube's URL scheme counted as a technological access control).

ls6126• 2 years ago

My impression was that EFF and the like were bearish on 1201(f) because of that last part, "to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title." and "to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title." because that essentially forecloses any practical application of 1201(f).

EMIRELADERO4• 2 years ago

"infringement" in this case means traditional copyright infringement, not DMCA circumvention infringement. Legitimate users of Switch games will have a strong fair use case for this.

kevin_thibedeau2• 2 years ago

DeCSS was ruled to be a circumvention device. Yuzu will be treated the same.

People using such software without the intent of engaging in RE activities will not be granted the benefit these exceptions. You could legally create your own Switch emulator but distributing it to others outside the legal veil of a corporate entity will not fly.

EMIRELADERO4• 2 years ago

I direct you to read my comment again and pay special attention to article (3).

DeCSS was not spared by it because the interoperability exemption applies only to software, not media like video or music.

aussieguy1234• 2 years ago

This is unfortunate. The switch is probably coming to the end of its life soon. As soon as Nintendos next gen (announced or not) console is released, the switch will be a legacy system and emulation is important for archiving purposes.

This does make it less likely that i'll be buying any Nintendo products in the future.

a_vanderbilt5• 2 years ago

I suspect that the "Switch 2" is going to be like the GameCube -> Wii, where the hardware is backward compatible and largely just a faster version of the previous generation. Essentially being a suped-up Switch means Yuzu could immediately work much better with whatever they come out with next. I think that is why they are going after Yuzu now, to try and get ahead of another Dolphin situation occurring much earlier in the lifecycle. Should Nintendo get a favorable ruling, this would open a huge can of legal worms for the tech industry as a whole.

ambichook3• 2 years ago

has nvidia worked on the architecture behind the tegra in the last few years? i'm not certain that's possible tbh

sergiotapia2• 2 years ago

Can someone run the actual public filing through AI to get the summary and highlights?

https://www.scribd.com/document/709016504/Nintendo-of-Americ...

devwastaken• 2 years ago

If you are ever going to make something where you may be sued, you must take precautions to protect yourself. Any website you use can be compelled to hand over your info. Never use personal details, always use trustable VPN's.

It's unfortunate, but remember that corps don't play fair, and they will turn "grey area" against you by having more money than you. They can find the right jurisdiction to get what they want.

That said, Nintendo is going to have to point to a specific DRM bypass. If they can't, yuzu should win.

1970-01-012• 2 years ago

Lawyers always kill the fun. Piracy and emulation is still legal in many other countries, however. Emulator projects should always be hosted in piracy-friendly nations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/b6rpzx/here_are_som...

saltymug762• 2 years ago

Emulation is legal in the US. Nintendo deserves to have their games pirated over this anti consumer overreach.

1970-01-012• 2 years ago

That's not how it works at all. If lawyers are applying pressure, the legally is still tied up in the courts, and unfortunately that particular emulation project isn't legal (in reality) until the matter is fully settled.

jovial_cavalier2• 2 years ago

Last I checked, you needed to actually own a switch and a downloadable version of the game to use yuzu... has this changed?

knicholes• 2 years ago

Oh, I didn't know you had to own a Switch. I thought you just had to own the game?

jovial_cavalier2• 2 years ago

Yeah, like the guy above says. They don’t actually circumvent the DRM. They just get the switch’s key. I think there are only as many keys as there are switches, so while you could probably buy it on the gray market, with just yuzu and a site that hosts roms, you can’t do any pirating

crtasm11• 2 years ago

You don't. I'm not aware of a way an emulator could confirm you bought the files you give it to run.

danhor• 2 years ago

You need the decryption keys, and yuzu only gives you instructions on how to extract them from your own switch (and is careful to stress that point). But nothing stops you from searching for the keys on the web and getting them from there.

cuckatoo• 2 years ago

I was not aware that Yuzu worked well enough to be worth suing over. Thanks for the tip.

mattigames• 2 years ago

Link to support the Yuzu developer team on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/yuzuteam

tanh• 2 years ago

While I’ll defend the right to make emulators, I do think it should not be published for a console actively sold in stores.

jokoon• 2 years ago

I recently pointed out that Nintendo is not selling new wii consoles, so people cannot play Mario Galaxy 1 or 2 unless they buy an used console.

Apparently they released the game in some limited version they don't sell anymore.

It makes zero sense, it's like they are asking people to pirate their games.

ken47• 2 years ago

What did Yuzu expect? If they’re going to challenge a company of Nintendo’s stature in this manner, then they should be prepared for legal war.

And what’s Nintendo supposed to do here? Most here would do the same thing if they were in Nintendo’s shoes. They have employees to pay.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

saltymug762• 2 years ago

Threatening a multi billion dollar company by making an emulator that contains zero infringing code? Give me a break. Nintendo needs to be squashed in court and brought back down to earth.

ApolloFortyNine2• 2 years ago

When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense.

But the switch emulation for at least 2 years now has been more than good enough to run games of a current gen system, and you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game.

The emulator also requires Nintendo data they're not actually allowed to ship (there's a number of resources to download it though), but they specifically coded to support it.

Imo switch 2 is coming and it'll likely be almost the same system just beefier, so going after the emulators makes sense for them.

Lammy4• 2 years ago

for at least 2 years now has been more than good enough to run games of a current gen system

To be fair that's impressive but nothing new. I 'member running N64 games with my Voodoo card in 1999 when GameCube wouldn't be out for two more years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraHLE

Liquix• 2 years ago

and you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game.

respectfully disagree. nintendo has fought hard to capture the casual/normie demographic and they have consistently sold more switches than M$ has sold xbox ones every month since launch.

switch emulation is alive and well but doesn't jeopardize their position as the non-techie's console of choice. therefore they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam

NamTaf• 2 years ago

The GP meant that they postulate a meaningful percentage within the scope of people who emulate don’t own the game they emulate.

johnnyanmac11• 2 years ago

Is "well they sold a lot I can just take it" ever a good defense?

they have taken to only pursuing legal action when an emulator is being packaged up for the masses to one-click install on steam

Well, this breaks that trend. AFAIK Yuzu has none of that. Their general argument is that it made too much patreon money over Tears of the Kingdom.

dt3ft• 2 years ago

Normie here. I will not be buying any more switch games now that I heard about this emulation thing.

matheusmoreira2• 2 years ago

When the game isn't be sold any more, along with the console, emulation makes sense.

Emulation makes sense since day one. Frankly, good emulation is straight up better than the console. Accuracy is high and you get a lot more features. Truth is they should have released the games in this format to begin with but they insist on creating little digital fiefdoms with "exclusives" and DRM instead.

If anything doesn't make sense it's all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished.

you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think any meaningful percentage own the game

Not really their problem. It's the players who are infringing copyright, not them.

The emulator also requires Nintendo data they're not actually allowed to ship

That's called adversarial interoperability and it's required for the system to function.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...

If anyone is to blame it's Nintendo for coming up with a system where it's impossible to not infringe on their precious "IP" while interoperating.

Just like Sega was blamed when it tried to work their trademarks into their "security systems" in order to deny their competitors their rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

The court's written opinion followed on October 20 and noted that the use of the software was non-exploitative, despite being commercial
and that the trademark infringement, being required by the TMSS for a Genesis game to run on the system, was inadvertently triggered by a fair use act and the fault of Sega for causing false labeling

itsoktocry2• 2 years ago

all this copyright nonsense which should be abolished.

I wonder what the Venn diagram of people who think all IP rights should be abolished, and people who say "ideas are nothing, execution is everything" looks like?

GabrielTFS9• 2 years ago

Legally it doesn't really matter at all whether or not the console is currently commercialized, at least from precedents like Sony v. Connectix (Connectix was selling a commercial (literally in shelves) emulator directly competing with the PlayStation while it was being commercialized and won the lawsuit Sony filed against them)

ApolloFortyNine2• 2 years ago

A quick glance shows that they developed their own Bios to do this, Yuzu specifically requires you to insert a copy of the Switch's firmware, it won't work otherwise.

It seems a bit grey as that would mean it's really the users who broke the law, but at the same time, the piece of software is quite literally useless without it. Even if they had their own absolutely terrible firmware with bad compatibility it'd be an easier defense to me. As is, their code is useless without an illegal-to-add addition.

bassiek3• 2 years ago

Are they talking about this stuff ?

Right here ?

https://en.btdig.com/search?order=2&q=%22Complete+Play+Ninte...

Better avoid it then.

saintradon3• 2 years ago

Regardless of whatever your take on emulation is - can we all agree that it's actually awful there isn't some organized archive of old video games? The library of congress supposedly has 173 million items in there - you'd think they'd have an archive.

Cloudef• 2 years ago

Ah yes, the same company that sued individual to pay portition of his salary to the company rest of his life. The same company that sends spies to spy on jailbreakers/hackers, watching their daily life.

Search for Gary Bowser and Nintendo ninjas (leaked documents) if you are unfamiliar

mise_en_place• 2 years ago

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Yuzu on its own is just a generic ARM emulator, right? Hope they don’t start going after QEMU next.

johnny22• 2 years ago

no, it's not. it has to match the switch hardware virtually and also whatever the switch os is.

giancarlostoro2• 2 years ago

This will just bring more attention to a perfectly legal emulator. Even if they somehow mess up what's already set in stone, people will fork Yuzu.

Zuiii• 2 years ago

Why isn't this covered by antislap? Yuzu should at least counter sue them. Why is the law so broken when it comes to IP?!

Devs who don't want to deal with Nintendo's nonsensical delusions should start their emulation projects on tor. When the law doesn't protect people from those who have a long history of abusing it to punish legal operations, perhaps people should take basic precautions to protect themselves from both the nutjobs and the law.

Maybe what law abiding developers need is a deepweb Github.

rjsdev• 2 years ago

Deepweb GitHub is a fun concept. Sign me up.

adamsmolinski• 2 years ago

Time to send some money through that Patreon.

dingi• 2 years ago

Never heard of Yuzu up until now. Thanks Nintendo for bringing it to the attention. I'll give it a go.

ryzvonusef3• 2 years ago

Nothing Nintendo can do can shut the emulation genie... because China.

A lot of Chinese sff pc/handheld producers (GPD/Minisforum/Ayaneo/Beelink etc)[1] are now creating device with the explicit understanding that these devices will be used for emulation, and are creating devices as such.

even if Yuzu is banned...Chinese will take over, and nothing any american/japanese game manufacturers can do to stop it.

----

[1] AyaNeo literally created a DS clone called the Flip DS... doesn't get more explicit then that: https://www.ayaneo.com/product/AYANEO-FLIP-DS.html

trollied• 2 years ago

They're crapping themselves because somebody has just released [1] a cartridge that lets you run "backups" stored on a SD card on an actual physical switch.

Each cart has a unique key though, so I imagine Nintendo will go on a big banning spree.

[1] https://migswitch.com/

rbits4• 2 years ago

Oh yeah, from what I've heard using that will get you banned instantly

ryzvonusef3• 2 years ago

True, but not sure you will be using Yuzu for that, seems slightly unrelated to the Yuzu witch hunt.

papichulo2023• 2 years ago

I dont think any of these manufacturers develop nor support any emulator.

ryzvonusef3• 2 years ago

Obviously they don't; for one, if someone else is doing it, why bother, and secondly, why link yourself with the effort.

But if they are spending money on creating and selling the hardware, there is no way they won't continue with the software, even if they have to do it secretly.

Not that they will have to, some enterprising Chinese software geek will take up the mantle, the genie is out of the box and Chinese gamers are NOT going to pony up to pay the Nintendo tax, and good luck trying to enforce foreign copyright in China.

Because they know what their devices are used for, here is the video on GPD's own YouTube channel showing off yuzu, mentions it by name in the title:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZIz6C23ew

Lammy4• 2 years ago

I know someone who uses a GPD WIN 3 as their primary computer and really loves it. Seems nice from the little I got to interact with it. I also like how the GPD WIN 4 looks like a giant PSVita lol

MyFirstSass• 2 years ago

This unfortunately makes me loose all respect for Nintendo.

Attacking an open source passion project with no money while they themselves don't care about supporting their own hardware fully in any way.

shmerl• 2 years ago

So they are trying to use the garbage DMCA 1201? That "law" should be burned with fire becasue it's unconstitutional.

8K832d7tNmiQ• 2 years ago

Gonna bet it's actually because of the DRM implementation on Yuzu that got it into trouble.

cylemons2• 2 years ago

DRM protecting yuzu itself?

pipes• 2 years ago

Not sure how I feel about the developers making 30k a month in patreon donations for writing an emulator for a current gen console. Nintendo might have a point here.

Edit: that said, I did pay 5 dollars (or something like that) for redream, which is a Dreamcast emulator. But in my mind at least, this doesn't deny the developers of the games I play on it the money they would get from a sale. Because it is a dead platform.

I know for a fact that when I pirated Dreamcast games back in the day, I would have paid for at for some of them at least. I don't feel great about that. It was one of my favourite consoles and I probably aided in it's untimely demise.

johnnyanmac11• 2 years ago

would it change if they were making less money? or emulating a previous generation? Or if that 30k was split between 100 devs and is basically a small tip per month instead of a very comfortable wage for a single dev?

slily2• 2 years ago

It would. If they weren't enabling current-gen piracy and profiting off of actively exploited IPs, they wouldn't get a tenth of that income, maybe not a hundredth, looking at what other projects earn. Plenty of top emulator developers spend their nights and weekends on hardware research and low-level programming and get zilch for their efforts. I could name several who deserve support more than Yuzu, but they don't withhold updates behind Patreon subscriptions, focus on new platforms to hijack market share, or self-promote by listing all the games you can pirate on their programs - in other words they're passion projects, not money-making enterprises, so far from making thousands a month, most of those projects are lucky to get a fiver here and there from an appreciative user. Anyone familiar with the scene can tell you that Yuzu makes that money because they actively seek it. The fact that it's a highly profitable product focused on enabling illegal activity and not a passion project is what's uncomfortable.

hamoodhabibi• 2 years ago

Personally I really don't get this outrage over emulators.

A huge chunk of the population can't afford Nintendo Switch or its expensively priced licenses. They turn to a zero-cost grey-market online. Nintendo wants to turn those people into paying customers?

Somebody who owns a Switch and buys games aren't going to stop paying so who is Nintendo really trying to deny?

How do we decide who gets to listen to a song and who doesn't on the internet where information constantly tries to reach homeostasis by becoming free and widely available? Capital?

mock-possum• 2 years ago

I know how I feel about it - 1) they deserve every penny and 2) Nintendo needs to back off.

A1kmm• 2 years ago

I'm not sure I understand your point. As I understand it, Nintendo makes: 1) hardware, and 2) games. They are attempting to tie together the game and the hardware, so that if you buy the game, you also have to buy the hardware, in order to force people to buy more hardware, and not just buy the game and go to a competitor for the hardware.

But as often happens, a competitor came along - by producing an interoperable emulator which allows people to buy the game, but play it on different hardware.

I can understand why Nintendo would prefer not to have competitors, and how they might like to use their market power in the games space to crush competitors (FLOSS or not) in the hardware / emulation space, but they should expect to have to compete - that hardly seems like 'having a point'.

Apparently, under US law, an owner of a copy of software is allowed to make a copy if it is an essential step to running it on particular hardware, and that copy is not used for any other purpose: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117. So someone who purchases a copy of the game is allowed to copy it again for the purpose of emulating it.

And apparently, while the US has laws against manufacturing and making available circumvention technology, decrypting for the purpose of interoperability is explicitly exempted: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 17 USC s1201 (f)(3).

So using that law as a cudgel to prevent competitors from producing a compatible product is not really what the law was intended for, and I'd say this is bullying and abuse of process against a competitor.

GabrielTFS9• 2 years ago

Legally it doesn't matter - in fact you could say the courts practically endorse making emulators to compete with existing platforms, given quotes like this from Sony v. Connectix (where Sony attempted to sue Connectix for making a commercial (sold on shelves) emulator for the PlayStation which was then being actively commercialized):

The Virtual Game Station is a legitimate competitor in the market for platforms on which Sony and Sony-licensed games can be played. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1522-23. For this reason, some economic loss by Sony as a result of this competition does not compel a finding of no fair use. Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly. See id. at 1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").

- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.

_imnothere• 2 years ago

Things like this and companies like Nintendo must be stopped, it's both morally and legally correct to emulate when people actually owns the machine and cartridges.

aurareturn4• 2 years ago

Disagreed. I'm guessing that 99.99% of Switch emulator users do not own the cartridges. They're stealing, which is not only morally wrong, but legally wrong.

Nintendo has the right to protect their IP and they have the right to make money.

Furthermore, I disagree in general that it's morally and legally correct to emulate something you purchased.

wiz21c• 2 years ago

That is, Yuzu in itself doesn't do anything. You need Nintendo's IP to run Yuzu, so Nintendo should blame those who steal their IP.

Now, the real question is: did Yuzu's creator have illegal access to Nintendo's IP to write Yuzu ?

hengistbury• 2 years ago

Regardless of the moral question, digital piracy is not really "stealing"

fartsucker69• 2 years ago

what's morally problematic about emulating something you already own?

catlifeonmars• 2 years ago

It may be morally wrong, but that is somewhat orthogonal to whether it is legally wrong (e.g. illegal).

esskay2• 2 years ago

By this logic we need to block Kodi, Plex, hell computers as someone might use them to download something instead of buying it.

rbits4• 2 years ago

Furthermore, I disagree in general that it's morally and legally correct to emulate something you purchased.

Can you elaborate? I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case.

Moldoteck3• 2 years ago

piracy is not stealing. the potential profit that they could have had is just potential, not actual, so you don't steal money. You also do not steal the game since the game is still owned by nintendo/others. Please don't accuse users of doing something they don't do. Also, this lawsuit is not against users, it's against an emulator creator, they didn't still nor pirate the nintendo content (it can be debatable if they had access to proprietary nintendo code and the emulator was written based on that code, but if not we can for sure say that they do not infringe nintendo's copyright)

parski• 2 years ago

You're full of shit.

nicman23• 2 years ago

too bad it is open source, ain't it?

hakube• 2 years ago

Nintendon't with the usual stuff

eemil• 2 years ago

I wish people would hold Nintendo to the same standards as Sony and Microsoft. But because they make the best games, everyone looks past their anti-consumer BS and permanently-stuck-in-the-90s corporate executives.

postexitus2• 2 years ago

Oh there is good emulation of Switch on powerful Switch-like devices? I will definitely give it a try. Thanks Nintendo!

rnts08• 2 years ago

Nintendo does a nintendo? surprised_pikachu.png

0dayz• 2 years ago

Its really annoying how Nintendo keep on thinking that western law is equal to Japanese law.

Afaik, in Japan you do have absurd copyright law to the point where Nintendo can sue anything and anyone doing emulator or hobby project.

tristor• 2 years ago

Ironically, I own more than one Switch and all the games I play using an emulator. After the Steam Deck came out, I just preferred using the emulator on the Steam Deck because it allowed me to backup and share save files, so I had the convenience of a handheld with the ability to play on my gaming PC at home and in both cases have performance unrestricted. When the Switch OLED came out I was hoping it would be a performance boost also, but unfortunately that wasn't the case so I didn't buy one.

I /really/ really like the Switch hardware. I think the Switch is arguably one of the best consoles ever made, especially for it's ergonomics and UX. The detachable joycons, the subtle integration of motion control, and it's light weight with good battery life made it an exceptionally good gaming product. I truly love my Switch(es), but they are very long in the tooth in 2024, running off what is basically a 2017 smartphone hardware. If Nintendo releases a Switch 2 with full games backwards compatibility, I'd prefer to play on first-party hardware vs using an emulator, but from my perspective I just want the best gaming experience, I don't care about their greedy interpretation of the law. Software is software and hardware is hardware, it makes no sense to restrict emulation in any way as long as you legally own the games.

coryfklein2• 2 years ago

I love video games. I grew up with Super Mario Bros on the NES and since the 2000's I feel absolutely spoiled by the burgoening and diverse indie game industry. I can hardly believe that today I can mix and match genres, and the fact that the genre "deck building city builder roquelike" (looking at you Against the Storm) even exists is amazing.

This whole industry exists because society has made guarantees that you can in fact license your game for sale and be rewarded for all your hard work. I'm glad that piracy has been far enough on the edges that people still find it worth their time to invest years into dreaming, crafting, and delivering wonderful new games every day.

Where does this leave console emulators? I agree with everyone here that there is nothing inherently wrong with building them. But practically speaking, they do in fact significantly lower the barrier to "I'm going to play this game without paying the creators for it."

If you, like me, love video games and want there to be a healthy and thriving market for them, then what is the right and correct set of rules that we can agree on as a society? I don't think banning emulators makes sense, but it bothers me how much the hacker community completely lacks any sense of nuance for how their "fun hacker project" can have a detrimental effect on the very thing they love.

If the creators of these emulators are doing it out of a love and passion for video games, should they not also encourage users to pay for them? I know Nintendo isn't popular around here, and this particular action of theirs seems overreaching even to me, but if I have to pick a side I'm choosing the one that has some semblance of a future for video games.

GabrielTFS9• 2 years ago

Yuzu certainly doesn't seem like a project that promotes piracy. They've made it very clear that they do not endorse piracy in any capacity, and in fact anyone found to be pirating games on e.g. their Discord server gets an insta-ban from what I've heard.

coryfklein2• 2 years ago

I haven't seen any indication that they promote it, but I'm guessing that something on the order of 98% of instances of Yuzu currently running on CPUs have pirated content in them. If the tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, it seems it would be good and laudable for the creators of it to do something to counter balance that beyond simply not endorsing said behavior?

Again, not saying they are morally or legally obligated to do anything beyond "not endorse", but I assume the creators like video games and want there to be a market for them, and that they are aware of how the tool they create erodes said market.

Woshiwuja• 2 years ago

Nintendo needs to stop with this bs

Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu

Related Stories