Nintendo is going after the development team of an emulator. A legal case was filed by Nintendo yesterday, alleging that the Nintendo Switch emulator, Yuzu, has caused damages to the company by allowing for its games to be played illegally before release. The suit also claims that the company behind the emulator, Tropic Haze LLC, makes a profit by facilitating piracy, noting that during the leak of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Yuzu's Patreon saw a large increase in users. Nintendo's legal team makes a case that Tropic Haze profits from and popularizes video game piracy.

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. pic.twitter.com/SGZVI6Cs0x

— Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) February 27, 2024

In the legal document, Nintendo refers to an emulator as, "a piece of software that allows users to unlawfully play pirated video games". They also assert that the Yuzu team is aware of the emulator's use in the context of piracy, and do not try to hide that aspect. In addition, Nintendo's legal team states that extracting your own keys from a Nintendo Switch console--a requirement to run any Nintendo Switch emulator--is illegal.

Source

 

[gundamu]

The difference in views between the emulation community and normal gamers is interesting.

I mean the top comment on this ign article covering this is essentialy happy about the lawsuit.

https://www.ign.com/articles/ninten...e-release-in-lawsuit-against-emulator-creator

normal gamers have been know to be low iq for a while
i mean they love digital games over physical media and complain when digital games/content is removed from their contents

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Its effectiveness could be demonstrated if it took years of effort and/or a complex coding solution to bypass. Instead, all it took was bending a paperclip. Much in the same way that 3DS' security was bypassed with a fridge magnet. Nintendo is at fault for allowing these glaring security flaws to be shipped with the final consumer product.

This is a completely arbitrary standard, with no legal weight, and even if I play devil's advocate and allow it, it doesn't work. Your comparison to the 3DS's use of a fridge magnet makes this way easier to explain for me, since I was actively following that scene while developments were being made.

It *did* take years of effort and complex coding solutions - six years of slowly advancing knowledge of the 3DS's systems, building upon prior knowledge and exploits, until it was finally possible to dump the bootroms, analyse them for vulnerabilities, and exploit it.
The fact it uses a magnet as *part* of the process for the end user is utterly irrelevant to anything. That is an additional security measure to make it less likely for the recovery method to be discovered, and it *worked* - it was only by finally dumping the bootroms (complex, years of work) that it was found to exist. The 3DS checks if a key combo is pressed, and the sleep mode magnet is triggered. If so, it silently checks for a *valid* recovery signature in the cartridge slot (which could not be faked without the aforementioned years of complex work), and if it doesn't find it, it just continues with normal boot with no indication that anything happened.

In no world is this a glaring fault. It's *funny* that to use this, you have to use a magnet, but that's like saying that the nuclear launch codes contain words so that's a glaring fault, if you know the right words and can make a flawless skin suit of the President you can probably start a nuclear launch (after spending years infiltrating the secret service with the support of a rival nation). It's just the method you use. I don't know what method could be considered secure under these requirements, maybe if the end user had to construct some sort of cool hacker den like in the movies and have a load of green text flashing on their laptop to seem suitably advanced? The people who worked on these exploits probably had that anyway.

 

[ut2k4master]

I literally don't care what the user agreement says. The second Nintendo got my money, was the second Nintendo lost ownership of that product. The idea that people don't gain ownership over their own property is some seriously dystopian shit.

thats not how it works though, doesnt matter what you think

 

[Subtle Demise]

thats not how it works though, doesnt matter what you think

if everything we "buy" is just a rental, then the prices need to be significantly lower

 

[MadMakuFuuma]

This is going to be a bad day for all emulation.

if you like emulation please support Yuzu court fees.


otherwise this could be the end of emulation

i don't think this will be the end of emulation. so many countries, laws etc. if they win the USA lawsuit, we still have things like "EU interpretations" for example, or something like that (only an example). then, if emulation in general begin to be illegal (not a chance in my opinion, but lets pretend for a moment thats a possibility). then we have countries who give a sh*t about those things like r*ss*a, for example. if all emulators all assets for this countries, then use some sort of ip to mask their locations, i doubt nintendo or any other company can do sh*t to stop... (again, my opinion)

 

[ItsAshleyFTW]

I did a little research and it seems like the law is on Yuzu's side in this case. After consulting the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Section 201.40, it seems like it is perfectly legal to circumvent technological measures if the purpose is to preserve video games, or make them accessible to people with physical disabilities. Citing the CFR:

(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following classes of copyrighted works:


17.

II. Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, that do not require access to an external computer server for gameplay, and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.

III. Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives, or museum to engage in the preservation activities described in paragraph (b)(17)(i)(B) or (b)(17)(ii) of this section.


18.

I. Computer programs, except video games, that have been lawfully acquired and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of lawful preservation of a computer program, or of digital materials dependent upon a computer program as a condition of access, by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. Any electronic distribution, display, or performance made outside of the physical premises of an eligible library, archives, or museum of works preserved under this paragraph may be made to only one user at a time, for a limited time, and only where the library, archives, or museum has no notice that the copy would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.


21.

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.

 

[ut2k4master]

I did a little research and it seems like the law is on Yuzu's side in this case. After consulting the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Section 201.40, it seems like it is perfectly legal to circumvent technological measures if the purpose is to preserve video games, or make them accessible to people with physical disabilities. Citing the CFR:

(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following classes of copyrighted works:


17.

II. Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, that do not require access to an external computer server for gameplay, and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.

III. Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives, or museum to engage in the preservation activities described in paragraph (b)(17)(i)(B) or (b)(17)(ii) of this section.


18.

I. Computer programs, except video games, that have been lawfully acquired and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of lawful preservation of a computer program, or of digital materials dependent upon a computer program as a condition of access, by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. Any electronic distribution, display, or performance made outside of the physical premises of an eligible library, archives, or museum of works preserved under this paragraph may be made to only one user at a time, for a limited time, and only where the library, archives, or museum has no notice that the copy would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.


21.

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.

the passages you quoted are clearly AGAINST yuzu

 

[ItsAshleyFTW]

the passages you quoted are clearly AGAINST yuzu

You may be right, but that doesn't mean it's on Nintendo's side either.

 

[tpax]

What I find really sad about this thing, is that none of my kids will ever own a Nintendo console or a single Nintendo game. At least not until they buy it themselves with their own money. Not a chance I will ever feed that piece of shit company with another dime.

 

[Windsall]

I did a little research and it seems like the law is on Yuzu's side in this case. After consulting the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Section 201.40, it seems like it is perfectly legal to circumvent technological measures if the purpose is to preserve video games, or make them accessible to people with physical disabilities. Citing the CFR:

(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following classes of copyrighted works:


17.

II. Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, that do not require access to an external computer server for gameplay, and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.

III. Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives, or museum to engage in the preservation activities described in paragraph (b)(17)(i)(B) or (b)(17)(ii) of this section.


18.

I. Computer programs, except video games, that have been lawfully acquired and that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of lawful preservation of a computer program, or of digital materials dependent upon a computer program as a condition of access, by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. Any electronic distribution, display, or performance made outside of the physical premises of an eligible library, archives, or museum of works preserved under this paragraph may be made to only one user at a time, for a limited time, and only where the library, archives, or museum has no notice that the copy would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.


21.

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.

I think what Nintendo will argue is that their intention wasn't just for preservation since the team posted about tears of the kingdom working when it hadn't released (so, along pirating), or something like that.

I hope Nintendo doesn't win, but it's hard to say how much it's in Yuzu's favour.

 

[choconado]

I will say, just a cursory looking up of Tropic Haze LLC's lawyer, he's not some fly by night strip mall Lionel Hutz type, this is a guy nationally recognized for his work in corporate law, with licenses to practice in three states. Like, who knows what their game-plan is, maybe they will settle out of court and it will all be disappointing for us and the future, but the potential for a very interesting case to watch is definitely growing...

 

[ItsAshleyFTW]

I think what Nintendo will argue is that their intention wasn't just for preservation since the team posted about tears of the kingdom working when it hadn't released (so, along pirating), or something like that.

I hope Nintendo doesn't win, but it's hard to say how much it's in Yuzu's favour.

I agree with your point, but the way I see it is that the federal guidelines would make it very difficult for Nintendo to go after emulation in general rather than this specific emulator. I don't think the people running Dolphin, Citra, etc. have bragged about running games a month before release.

 

[The Catboy]

thats not how it works though, doesnt matter what you think

Then Nintendo can sue me for thinking I own my Switch, I would love for them to actually defend their agreement in court. Until then, I still don’t care what their agreement says. Really think about this for a second. If you bought a red Ford truck and completely legally own it, like no car loan or anything, you can do whatever you want with it. Now imagine you decide to paint it blue and you do so. Would you be ok with a Ford employee painting it back to red just because an agreement said they could?

 

[ut2k4master]

Then Nintendo can sue me for thinking I own my Switch, I would love for them to actually defend such their agreement in court. Until then, I still don’t care what their agreement says. Really think about this for a second. If you bought a red Ford truck and completely legally own it, like no car loan or anything, you can do whatever you want with it. Now imagine you decide to paint it blue and you do so. Would you be ok with a Ford employee painting it back to red just because an agreement said they could?

terrible comparison

 

[Xzi]

terrible comparison

It's actually not. Hardware is hardware, regardless of whether it's a cartridge or a gaming console. Nintendo doesn't want you to be able to backup the former or tinker with/repair the latter, but US law permits both, and EU consumer protections are even stronger than that. Nintendo's attempts to re-write the law in their favor have so far been unsuccessful, and hopefully they continue to be.

 

[The Catboy]

terrible comparison

Please explain

 

[Xzi]

Please explain

I think they might be getting hung up on the paint thing. An oil or spark plug change would be the better comparison, anything internal really, because it is theoretically possible that Ford could detect that and remotely disable your engine computer, effectively bricking your truck.

There are in fact recent real-life examples of failed OTA software updates causing newer vehicles to brick. Shit's cray.

 

[Kioku]

I think they might be getting hung up on the paint thing. An oil or spark plug change would be the better comparison, anything internal really, because it is theoretically possible that Ford could detect that and remotely disable your engine computer, effectively bricking your truck.

There are in fact recent real-life examples of failed OTA software updates causing newer vehicles to brick. Shit's cray.

Sounds like something John Deere does.

We should, without a doubt, be able to do what we want to with the hardware we purchase outright. Software as well, as long as we are not illegally distributing it or attempting to profit in a way that skirts legal grounds.

 

[The Catboy]

I think they might be getting hung up on the paint thing. An oil or spark plug change would be the better comparison, anything internal really, because it is theoretically possible that Ford could detect that and remotely disable your engine computer, effectively bricking your truck.

There are in fact recent real-life examples of failed OTA software updates causing newer vehicles to brick. Shit's cray.

Fair but that just sounds like being deliberately obtuse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless of the reason, anyone should not be ok with a company tell you that can’t do something with a product you bought.

 

[Kioku]

Fair but that just sounds like being deliberately obtuse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless of the reason, anyone should not be ok with a company tell you that can’t do something with a product you bought.

Now I'm thinking HOAs.... The power struggle between consumer and company is a bit ridiculous.