Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
The video game emulator Yuzu circumvents encryption on Nintendo Switch games, making them available on other platforms like personal computers and mobile phones in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, according to a lawsuit from Nintendo of America Inc.
https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1762576284817768457/
"NEW: Nintendo is suing the creators of popular Switch emulator Yuzu, saying their tech illegally circumvents Nintendo's software encryption and facilitates piracy. Seeks damages for alleged violations and a shutdown of the emulator.
Notes 1 million copies of Tears of the Kingdom downloaded prior to game's release; says Yuzu's Patreon support doubled during that time. Basically arguing that that is proof that Yuzu's business model helps piracy flourish."
You're viewing a single thread.
Booo! Nintendo sucks! This was decided 30 years ago. Emulation is not illegal.
Yeah and none of the switch emulator stuff I've seen comes bundled with the firmware. You have to track that down separately or dump your own from your Switch.
This sure looks like like a slapp suit to me.
It's good we are all clear, nintendo isn't arguing that. They are arguing a case about copyright infringement and being in violation of the dmca
It is not illegal to make copies of games you own and play them on an emulator. That is what was decided by the courts. Nintendo is trying to make that illegal.
They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be), that’s the same as Yuzu circumventing their encryption.
That’s basically like saying VLC should be illegal because it has the capability of copying a DVD.
They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be),
Yes. That's what I'm saying. That's what I said.
Yuzu is not infringing on their copyright, some of the users are. Sue the users.
unfortunately, that isn't how the DMCA works
Can you point me to the provision you’re talking about?
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Yes, so distributing the code necessary to perform the decryption is illegal. That’s why you have to hack an actual switch to get the code necessary to perform the decryption (prod.keys). All Yuzu is doing is running that code through an AES library to get the game and emulating a Switch to play it. You can’t make AES libraries illegal just because they can be used to decrypt copy protection.
It’s the same with DVD decryption. VLC is not illegal because it doesn’t include the codes used to decrypt DVDs. Once you have those codes, VLC can copy a DVD for you.
No, it's broader than that. Providing a mechanism is enough. Yes, this is functionally making maths illegal, and yes, this is a complaint we've had with the dmca for 20 years.
Providing the keys is against dmca, as is Providing the tooling that specifically breaks the rights management. This is just the shitty way Americans made the copyright system.
I love YUZU and it’s wonderful…
…but if they didn’t have a Patreon they’d have a better stance
You are being downvoted but reminder to everyone that the public Yuzu is way behind on updates and compatibility, they sell access to their most recent version via their patreon. Something that Ryujinx does not do, it purely is a donation and nothing more.
You can download and view the latest Yuzu source code for free and do practically whatever you want with it (GPLv3), including building and running it.
What paying via Patreon provides you is access to early access builds of the software. You're paying for the convenience of them compiling the latest version of the software for you.
You can even get all the latest EA builds as .exe files on the Yuzu PineappleEA GitHub!
You can get all the latest Yuzu EA builds for free on their GitHub
But the fact that they’re kinda “selling” access… wait, why exactly DO they “sell” access even? They might not have as much legal trouble if they didn’t do that.
They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be), that’s the same as Yuzu circumventing their encryption.
Yes, yes they are. That's how the DMCA works. It's mental.
That’s not how the DMCA works, or tons of other software would be illegal. It’s illegal to circumvent copy protection under the DMCA (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), but it’s not illegal to make something that can be used to circumvent copy protection.
In fact, there are exemptions to that provision and one of them states that circumventing copy protection in order to play a video game using assistive technologies is legal.
It’s illegal to circumvent copy protection under the DMCA (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), but it’s not illegal to make something that can be used to circumvent copy protection.
It is explicitly illegal to produce any thing whose purpose it is to circumvent DRM:
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;I'm telling you, that law is mental.
In fact, there are exemptions to that provision and one of them states that circumventing copy protection in order to play a video game using assistive technologies is legal.
Could you point that specific exception in the law? I can't find it.
Link for convenience: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf
The exceptions are handled by the Library of Congress and go through a renewal process every three years. Here’s the one from 2021:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-10-28/pdf/2021-23311.pdf
The accessibility use exception is on the last page, middle of the page, paragraph labeled 21.
It’s illegal to make something that’s sole purpose is to circumvent copyright. Yuzu does not have that sole purpose, and doesn’t include the code necessary (prod.keys) to even accomplish it.
The actual text for reference:
Video games in the form of computer programs, embodied in lawfully acquired physical or downloaded formats, and operated on a general-purpose computer, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the purpose of allowing an individual with a physical disability to use software or hardware input methods other than a standard keyboard or mouse.
That explicitly only applies to physically disabled people. Yuzu is not specifically targetted at providing a different input method (at all) and certainly not solely for the physically disabled.
That exception is not relevant to this case.
I didn’t say it was. I used it as an example of when circumventing copy protection is allowed under the DMCA.