• S410@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh, I guess that’s slightly better. At least this fucking idiocy didn’t make it into, essentially, law. But it also means that Nintendo (and other corpos) will not stop suing people left and right.

        At what point will they sue fucking computer manufacturers, I wonder? Clearly, the ability to run unsigned code facilitates creation of code that’s illegal (such as DRM circumvention tools and fucking Nintendo emulators), which, in turn, obviously facilitates piracy of Nintendo games! Poor Nintendo is loosing dozens of dollars because of those evil, evil computers which are clearly used for pirating their games and nothing else! This needs to stop!

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          To be fair, the Yuzu team weren’t exactly running a moneyless operation, like most emulators do. That’s what’s being sued over here

  • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    As I heard it, the fact that they were heavily implying (and often delivering) versions of the emulator that worked with as yet unreleased games for Patreon backers exclusively while the ‘open to everyone’ version was not as compatible, is what probably did them in.

    It would have been pretty hard for them to argue that their emulator was for legal means when they were constantly telling people to pay up for the Patreon to get access to builds optimized for games that hadn’t yet gone on sale. If they had just kept the public in parity with the Patreon and just coincidentally had performance uplifts on upcoming games before they dropped, they’d probably have been fine. As it is, they painted a pretty compelling picture that they were “pay for piracy” and that’s where the lawyers probably told them to take a deal and get out.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Maybe it’s just a case of hindsight being 20/20, but it in some ways really feels like they were borderline asking to get sued.

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s was naive of them to think they could get away with making optimizations for games that haven’t been released yet as long as it’s behind a paywall. As if Nintendo didn’t make a Patreon account and sub to them to collect evidence for their case.

      The moment they even touched the ROMs of unreleased games they were engaging in piracy.

  • Computerchairgeneral@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not that surprising an outcome given it was either this or go bankrupt through legal fees as the case dragged on. At least there’s still Ryujinx.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder why they settled, I thought emulators were protected as long as they don’t contain any copyrighted stuff. Was it because they circumvented DRM?

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The case Nintendo was making, as I understand it, was that their site provided pretty clear links to sources where you could circumvent encryption, even though they weren’t doing it themselves.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is effectively how Kakao argued against Tachiyomi: they provided extensions to websites where pirated manga could be hosted, even if they weren’t running the sites themselves. They facilitated piracy, even if they didn’t host any pirated content.

        I have a profound respect for how RPCS3 has been able to stay above water. They police the community heavily, AND they have a list of games that are persona non grata to even talk about, let alone ask how to get them to work.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I wonder why they settled

      I’d imagine because they charged for access to piracy-specific functions of the tool and knew they couldn’t argue a case.

      It was a dumb move for them to add functionality for unreleased games in the first place, and an even worse move to charge money for it. It makes it a lot harder to convince a court that your tool is for backup/archival purposes only, when you have features that could only work with pirated materials.

    • roadkill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I wonder why they settled

      Because they were engaged in code theft, piracy and Nintendo had them dead to rights. Leaked chats and drive folders showed they were actively pirating games, paywalling questionable content and using the Switch SDK. Clean room emulation implementations are completely legal. Their methods and behavior were not.