It was a settlement. The devs decided, for reasons that are not public, that it would be easier to just pay Nintendo some money and take down the emulator than to fight them in court. It’s very possible (even likely) that they figured it would be more expensive to fight Nintendo’s lawyers than to just pay a fixed amount up front.
That’s quite often the case with thee issues - it’s simply a finance game by the player with the deep pockets - they can afford to effectively bankrupt a smaller player who may have done nothing wrong.
They don’t actually provide decryption keys, the user has to either extract them from their own Switch or find them elsewhere online. However, it could be argued by Nintendo that using an unreleased game ROM for testing proves that the devs themselves were guilty of piracy, and were therefore somehow condoning the use of their emulator for piracy.
Either way, we won’t know how well Nintendo’s arguments would have held up in court, because the devs settled rather than fight it out.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
How dare they want their copyrighted material not stolen
there is nothing in Yuzu that Nintendo has copyright to. Emulators are also precedentially legal.
so yes, how dare they want “their” copyrighted material not “stolen”…
If it’s not illegal then why did yuzu get shut down? Maybe you can represent yuzu against Nintendo, it’d be a slam dunk.
ask bleem who actually beat Sony in court but went bankrupt. its not about the legality, its about the wallet.
This.
The legal system does not exist for poors.
It was a settlement. The devs decided, for reasons that are not public, that it would be easier to just pay Nintendo some money and take down the emulator than to fight them in court. It’s very possible (even likely) that they figured it would be more expensive to fight Nintendo’s lawyers than to just pay a fixed amount up front.
That’s quite often the case with thee issues - it’s simply a finance game by the player with the deep pockets - they can afford to effectively bankrupt a smaller player who may have done nothing wrong.
There should be penalties for that.
“Yeah, we know we’re wrong but we’re just going to litigate as much as possible to drain our adversary’s pockets.”
That kind of thing should warrant its own criminal case.
Also, in the future, emulation devs really shouldn’t reveal their identity.
I wonder if 5heybwouldnt have started charging if Nintendo would have done anything.
Isn’t it the decryption keys? and also the fact that they used an unreleased leak of tears of the kingdom to playtest paywalled compatibility?
They don’t actually provide decryption keys, the user has to either extract them from their own Switch or find them elsewhere online. However, it could be argued by Nintendo that using an unreleased game ROM for testing proves that the devs themselves were guilty of piracy, and were therefore somehow condoning the use of their emulator for piracy.
Either way, we won’t know how well Nintendo’s arguments would have held up in court, because the devs settled rather than fight it out.