Everyone in the emulation scene can breathe a sigh of relief.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
36 points
*

The main link is to the motion paper. This is the link to the actual agreed-upon final judgment and injunction:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.1.pdf

In short, Yuzu agreed to stop developing and distributing the emulator, cannot distribute source code, assign it to a new entity, encourage any IP violations, and must surrender their domain.

The findings also include admissions that the purpose of the Yuzu software was “primarily” designed to circumvent technical measures in violation of the DMCA.

So it appears Yuzu didn’t “win” in any real sense. Nintendo got a chilling amount of damages, effectively their full injunction, and also some agreed-upon “findings of fact” that may serve Nintendo in future litigation to justify claims that emulators are “primarily” designed to circumvent technical measures and circumvent the DMCA.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Someone mentioned this on Reddit, but I wonder how poorly discovery would have gone for Yuzu if the lawsuit had continued.

I can’t imagine they were super careful about not bringing up the piracy side of things in various internal and even external communications. I can’t help but wonder if they basically talked about or even bragged about how much money they get from adding support for games like TotK.

permalink
report
parent
reply

It’s a good point. Honestly, unless everyone in a company is extremely careful, non-lawyers will say very incriminating crap at some point. I think Grokster (the vicarious infringement case Nintendo was probably going to rely on) had quite a bit of that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

This is bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Its bad for Yuzu/Tropic Haze. But it is “not bad” for emulation as a whole because there was no legal precedent.

If nintendo decides to continue to strong arm emulator teams into shutting down that is going to be really bad. But that is ALSO when activist orgs tend to get involved and foot the bill/provide lawyers because they want the precedent that prevents those kinds of lawsuits.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You think Nintendo is just going to stop? They can get an easy couple of million now by going after anyone with an emulator. I’m sure they could even go after discontinued console emulators too now they have a shitty service to play their old games.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There actually was a determination made with legal definitions. Check the rest of the comments again. We now have a little precedent. It’s a bit hazy though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Interesting. Wonder what that means in terms of github. Yuzu isn’t technically distributing the source, is Nintendo taking ownership of it? What stops someone from forking the repo? Who is “yuzu” that’s paying this bill?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Presumably forks remain public on Github at their own risk, but Nintendo may shift to a DMCA removal policy now that are about to have a judgment.

The judgment has two sections, one for people who have “privity” and more direct relationships with Tropic Haze, and another for “all third parties acting in active concert and participation with” Tropic Haze. The latter enjoins only sharing code and decryption keys. So it certainly sounds like this was drafted to capture, in the Court’s order, people who don’t have a relationship but are code-forking.

Nintendo doesn’t have nearly as clean legal leverage for randos and individuals that don’t have a company built around this emulator, but I actually predict they’ll do GitHub DMCA removals on forks based on a broad reading of the injunction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There is no judgement in a settlement, and settlements are not case-law. The court has little to do with the settlement as it is simply a binding agreement between the parties to resolve the dispute outside of the court. The judge must also agree and sign off but the settlement is only binding to the parties to the suit and does not create any precedent.

If Nintendo wishes to go after anyone else, it will require an entirely new suit. A quick google on the differences between judgements, verdicts, and settlements will explain a lot better.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Games

!games@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

Community stats

  • 8.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.3K

    Posts

  • 89K

    Comments