Nintendo goes after Switch emulator yuzu in new lawsuit

Quoting: emphyOn another note: I find it very telling that the yuzu github page doesn't seem to have been hit by a dmca notice.

Indicates to me that nintendo are far less sure of their legal legwork than they pretend to be.

That's because Yuzu doesn't violate the DMCA. Yuzu itself is just an emulator to play Nintendo Switch games. It doesn't contain any circumvention tools.

I suppose Nintendo could try to nail Yuzu on contributory copyright infringement in the same manner Betamax was attacked some 40 years ago.

What is more concerning is whether emulation is actually legal (the video I linked earlier goes over this in great detail). That's a sticking point.

Re: The Ars article doragasu linked:

QuoteCrucially, though, the open source Yuzu emulator itself does not contain a copy of those "prod.keys," which Nintendo's lawsuit acknowledges that users need to supply themselves. That makes Yuzu different from the Dolphin emulator, which was taken off Steam last year after Nintendo pointed out that the software itself contains a copy of the Wii Common Key used to decrypt game files.

It's ridiculous to think Yuzu could be taken down for providing instructions on a website. Yuzu isn't a company. It's software worked on by developers from all around the world, and someone who contributes to the project provides a website for them with those instructions.

And here Nintendo argues for contributory infringement:

QuoteIn its lawsuit, though, Nintendo argues that "the vast majority of Yuzu users are using Yuzu to play downloaded pirated games in Yuzu." For instance, the lawsuit points to data showing that leaked copies of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom were downloaded one million times in the week and a half before the game's release, a time period that also saw "thousands of additional paid members" added to Yuzu's Patreon. Yuzu is "secondarily liable" for "inducing" this kind of infringement, Nintendo argues.

Now make the exact same argument for torrent clients.

None of these arguments in themselves are convincing. Taken together, they might be. But the main point is: using Yuzu is not in itself illegal. There is no part of Yuzu that is illegal. It just so happens that many users of Yuzu run afoul of the DMCA at some point before using Yuzu.

QuoteBut Loiterman said he's "skeptical this goes to trial. Unless Yuzu has very deep pockets, I think they're likely to take it down, and the software will live on but not be centrally distributed by Yuzu."

Yuzu is not "centrally distributed" by Yuzu. It's distributed by Github. Yuzu will die unless someone steps up to host the repository elsewhere because it lives on contributions by multiple people from all over the world.

Bleem!, the Playstation emulator for the Dreamcast, was sued by Sony. They won the case. They went bankrupt anyway. Yuzu is very different, because it's not a company. Who are they suing? The developer who owns the Github repository? A vertical slice of the most active contributors? The person who hosts the Yuzu website? The person who owns the Yuzu discord group?

Either way, Yuzu has an impressive amount of Patreon donations. In the order of $45,000 AUD a month; they might actually be able to take on Nintendo with that kind of cash, but not forever.

This seems like just the sort of case the EFF would want to provide legal resources for.

I don't own a Switch or play any Nintendo games, but this case will certainly set a precedent.

Anyway, I donated to Yuzu today because fuck Nintendo.

The weird thing about these lawsuits is that they are now targeting a company as "the makers of yuzu". I don't know anything about the development, but assuming that this company is the main driving force, it is still only a part of it. Second problem is that this is a US lawsuit using US laws that mean nothing for most of the world. So even if this went to court and Nintendo wins, nothing would change. The emu either continues directly or is forked and continued. So from a perspective of stopping emulation this is not going to work and is possibly going to have the opposite effect. So to me, it sounds more like a way of extorting a few dollars from US corporate entity.

I was really considering finally buying myself a switch, at worst maybe waiting to see what the new hardware release was going to be later this year, but maybe, just maybe, I shouldn't condone the actions of one of the most bloodthirsty and psychopathic video game companies in history by purchasing their equipment.
Maybe instead I should just use that money to purchase the indie games on Steam that are basically the same things Nintendo's putting out, but with actual innovation, which Nintendo hasn't done since the GameCube.

A common opinion in the comments of that Ars article was that "the Patreon was really asking for it." I'm curious what GOL users think of the Patreon which is bringing in more than 10 times as much money as GIMP's Patreon accounts.

Is it illegal to develop commercial emulators?

Quoting: Purple Library GuyJust illegal in some places, yeah. But if they've been selling 'em in the US, the fact that the sales elsewhere were legal will not stop Nintendo from suing them into oblivion, making it impossible for them to continue selling them elsewhere.

So the lesson for other such devices and for emulation in general is not don't do it, but don't allow sales in or downloads to the United States, or any place with a DMCA-lookalike.

The point is that there are legitimate users. The argument is that it can't possibly be used lawfully so it is exclusively a tool for crimes and it doesn't hold water, for this and other reasons.

Distributing it in the US might be a crime if it is decided that it is a tool capable of breaking DRM (even though it is insufficient for that task as it does not contain the keys), but my point is that it is not because "there is no lawful way to use Yuzu to play Nintendo Switch games".

It is not a crime to make a useless emulator that can't play games, and if people use your useless emulator for crimes it is not your problem. But if someone made a program that breaks the DRM of switch games, doesn't matter if it can emulate them, distributing it is a crime.

Nintendo is grasping at straws. They are making many wrong and misleading arguments to push a copyright-maximalist narrative that serves their purposes of suppressing legal and ethical competition and denying basic customer rights. Pushing this narrative is probably more important to them than suing the yuzu devs for money they can't pay. Yeah people can be sued in the US for looking at Nintendo wrong, doesn't mean that is what the law says.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualBleem!, the Playstation emulator for the Dreamcast, was sued by Sony.

Just to add to this, it was for Windows first. I was a Bleem! user, and I remember a lot of discontent about the "Bleem! 4 Dreamcast" version draining resources from improving the main product, even though if I remember rightly it was necessary to have it there to bring in funds to deal with the legal stuff.

And, for everyone else since I know you'll already know this one, that suit wasn't about the emulator itself, but the marketing side of it as a commercial product.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI don't own a Switch or play any Nintendo games, but this case will certainly set a precedent.

Anyway, I donated to Yuzu today because fuck Nintendo.

I used to be as passionate a fan of Nintendo as you guys know me today for my love of Bomberman (it was formerly a concurrent and almost symbiotic thing, since Bomberman's Nintendo installments were particularly popular and I got started with the series there). You know the drill - the sort of marketing companies can't buy.

They lost me as a fan several years ago (they took the few series I liked off in directions I didn't enjoy or stopped making them altogether, released badly-made hardware that requires frequent repairs due to design-defects*, and various other missteps), and I wholeheartedly agree with the "Fuck Nintendo" sentiment!

*These weren't covered under warranty in the UK (unlike other regions where Nintendo treated it like Microsoft treated the Xbox 360 defects) in spite of it being designed in, and they charged as much for the repairs as you'd pay for a replacement. It changed eventually, but that was years after I'd already come to the conclusion that a user shouldn't have to constantly repair carefully-used in-warranty equipment, got sick of it, and took my proverbial entertainment-dollar elsewhere.

Nintendo is now just like the other options that they used to be positively contrasted against, and this feels like the next step down that road - they're now even further from what they once were than I ever could have imagined. They can go to hell. And that's the sort of marketing that companies don't want to buy.

Quoting: EternalBlueFlameMaybe instead I should just use that money to purchase the indie games on Steam that are basically the same things Nintendo's putting out, but with actual innovation, which Nintendo hasn't done since the GameCube.

That was what I did after I ditched the Switch and all of my cartridges in late 2021. It was easily one of the best gaming decisions I ever made and it's worked out really well.

There's SO much more available on Steam (and that's before even touching on GOG.com and Itch.io), and gaming there is far better value in general than in Nintendo's ecosystem, even when it comes to buying the same indies.

Welcome, by the way!

i grew up with a nintendo console between my hands, nintendo fanboy for sure buuttttttt i hate them to make me pay 2 times the price for physical copy while the digital price is lower...

I thought nintendo wouldn't be an ahole like sony and microsoft but nooooo let's do like america because we are capitalist.

Also thanks to emulators because after that we want to buy a digital or physical copy of a game we have enjoyed on emulator.

So no need to sue them, they do give a benefit for companies


Last edited by nenoro on 28 February 2024 at 12:57 pm UTC

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualA common opinion in the comments of that Ars article was that "the Patreon was really asking for it." I'm curious what GOL users think of the Patreon which is bringing in more than 10 times as much money as GIMP's Patreon accounts.

Is it illegal to develop commercial emulators?

Well, their early access to builds for people who pay probably isn't helping their case here.

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualA common opinion in the comments of that Ars article was that "the Patreon was really asking for it." I'm curious what GOL users think of the Patreon which is bringing in more than 10 times as much money as GIMP's Patreon accounts.

Is it illegal to develop commercial emulators?

Well, their early access to builds for people who pay probably isn't helping their case here.

I don't think selling emulators is actually illegal. Connectix, for example, won in the case Sony brought against them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station

Of course, Sony brought them to the brink, purchased them, and shut it down anyway...

I'm actually really interested to see if there's anything about commercial emulators being illegal, because I can't find anything. I figured the potential issues were the same regardless of whether Yuzu was making money from it or not.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualA common opinion in the comments of that Ars article was that "the Patreon was really asking for it." I'm curious what GOL users think of the Patreon which is bringing in more than 10 times as much money as GIMP's Patreon accounts.

Is it illegal to develop commercial emulators?

Well, their early access to builds for people who pay probably isn't helping their case here.

I don't think selling emulators is actually illegal. Connectix, for example, won in the case Sony brought against them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station

Of course, Sony brought them to the brink, purchased them, and shut it down anyway...

I'm actually really interested to see if there's anything about commercial emulators being illegal, because I can't find anything. I figured the potential issues were the same regardless of whether Yuzu was making money from it or not.

It's not so much about the emulation as it is about the ROM/firmware issue. To be fully open, devs would have to create the whole firmware/OS/system software from specs alone. This generally doesn't happen and using the emulator requires copying it from an original device. For somewhat modern devices this also means circumventing whatever protection was put in place to prevent that. And the legality of this last bit is more difficult and varies around the world. In the US, they worked hard to push the DMCA through which helps the manufacturers make as much of that illegal as they as they could push through. I'm not sure where exactly Yuzu fits in in the process of helping circumvention, but at least it's vague enough to give Nintendo a stick to beat with. It's now up to the company being sued to pony up the funds to defend themselves. Whatever happens, it's still strictly a US thing since most other places in the worlds don't have laws as broken as the DMCA.

Suckers, was thinking about buying the pokemon legends games, but fuck them

Yuzu just makes me think of the delicious candy.

Trying to find information about Tropic Haze LLC, which Nintendo is suing, proves difficult. Nintendo provides this information in the suit:

QuoteDefendant employs several developers who operate as the company’s agents, including Yuzu’s author and lead developer, Bunnei.

QuoteTropic Haze engages in systematic and continuous activity in the State of Rhode Island and is thus “at home” in this District.

QuoteDefendant Tropic Haze LLC is a Rhode Island limited liability company that develops and distributes the emulator known as “Yuzu.” Defendant maintains a network of paid coders/developers who develop and maintain the software, including compiling and releasing weekly (and sometimes daily) updates to improve the software’s ability to replicate the gameplay experience on Nintendo’s authorized hardware and software. These developers are Defendant’s agents and, on information and belief, are acting within the scope of their agency when committing the acts discussed herein, making Defendant liable for their unlawful conduct.

Now, this is completely unrelated, but linking to other tools that you don't have anything to do with does not qualify as "trafficing in third-party software" or copyright infringement in America. It does in Japan, though.

QuoteAdditionally, Defendant traffics in third-party software that circumvents technological measures on the Nintendo Switch console by linking to that software on Yuzu’s website.

And on the other hand, this is not a good look:

QuoteThis may seem complicated, but in private, Bunnei admits there is a far easier way. When a user raised in a Discord chat operated by Defendant that setting up Yuzu was complicated, Bunnei first said “unfortunately at this time, it’s not as simple as” running a simple script, and there are several “specific manual step[s], hence why to go through the whole process, you need to basically learn what they are.” “Or,” Bunnei added, “users probably just pirate a yuzu folder with everything.”

Regarding circumvention, Nintendo describes how Yuzu works:

QuoteImportantly, an unauthorized Nintendo video game ROM is still an encrypted game file, protected by the Game Encryption. Indeed, Defendant’s lead developer admits as much. When asked in a June 2018 Discord chat whether “xcis”—the file type of game ROM dumps from a cartridge—“come decrypted,” Bunnei responded: “they are encrypted.” Nintendo is not aware of any source of decrypted Nintendo Switch game ROMs.

Yuzu allows users to play unauthorized copies of Nintendo Switch games by circumventing the Game Encryption at or immediately before runtime.

Yuzu unlawfully decrypts the ROM’s Game Encryption by (1) identifying the encrypted Title Key that accompanies the game file and using keys in the prod.keys to decrypt the Title Key, and (2) decrypting the game ROM using the Title Key. Yuzu unlawfully decrypts unauthorized copies of both physical cartridge and Nintendo eShop games, which come in two different file types, using slightly different methods.

But both methods require cryptographic keys from the prod.keys and result in decryption of an encrypted ROM. Then the unauthorized game is able to be played in Yuzu.

Yuzu actually decrypts the game using the prod.keys files the user extracts earlier. This is...murky, legally, at best. Without the keys that need to be provided by the user, it can't decrypt anything. But if it has them, then it circumvents the encryption Nintendo provides.

Nintendo also argues later on that emulation itself leads to loss of revenue, as customers should be required to purchase a copy of the game for each platform:

QuoteAs a clear demonstration of this, certain of Nintendo’s third-party licensees release their games not only on the Nintendo Switch but also on PCs and other platforms. If users wish to lawfully play those games on multiple platforms, they must buy the games separately for each platform.

On the other hand, this passage sends mixed messages:

QuoteOn information and belief, Defendant and its agents were fully aware that the reason membership of the Patreon exploded was that Yuzu was being used for unlawful play of pirated copies of Zelda: TotK . Indeed, Bunnei implemented a ban on discussing Zelda: TotK emulation in Yuzu’s Discord server because so many Yuzu users were trying to seek support emulating it.

Nintendo then argues that Yuzu harmed law-abiding Nintendo customers because it contributed to the propagation of...spoilers:

QuoteThe prevalence of piracy of Zelda: TotK in the days leading up to its release, in large part through emulators such as Yuzu, harmed law-abiding Nintendo customers too. For example, many fans of The Legend of Zelda were forced to avoid social media to prevent seeing spoilers and preserve their surprise and delight for the actual game release, as seen in these fan posts:

Nintendo is not attempting to get Yuzu taken down while the case is ongoing, like Sony did with Bleem! and Connectix's VGS (that is, they aren't seeking a preliminary injunction; only permanent injunction):

QuoteDefendant’s conduct has caused and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Nintendo great and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant and its members and agents from engaging in further acts of offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in Yuzu or other circumvention software.

Incidentally, Nintendo is also accusing Yuzu's developers of pirating as well as dumping games:

QuoteOn information and belief, Defendant’s agents, while acting within the scope of their authority from Defendant, have also downloaded game ROMs online from pirate websites which they have not lawfully purchased.

Nintendo also wants control of the domain name:

QuoteFor entry of an order, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 1203, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and this Court’s inherent equitable powers, requiring Defendant and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all third parties in active concert or participation with any of them: (a) to surrender and cease to use the domain name YUZU-EMU.ORG, and any variant thereof controlled by Defendant; (b) to immediately transfer the domain name YUZU-EMU.ORG, and any variant thereof controlled by Defendant, to Nintendo’s control;

And that's it. That's everything I thought was notable in the lawsuit, as a non-lawyer and copyright anti-enthusiast.

Quoting: emphyOn another note: I find it very telling that the yuzu github page doesn't seem to have been hit by a dmca notice.

Indicates to me that nintendo are far less sure of their legal legwork than they pretend to be.

The thing is that it's not really a copyright lawsuit, as such. It's about some stuff in a copyright law, but that stuff doesn't actually concern copyright. It's about how the software, when used in a device, probably will be used to tamper with a digital lock of some sort, an action which the DMCA makes illegal. A DMCA takedown notice on Github would have to be about who holds the copyright of the software itself, and Nintendo aren't alleging they hold any copyright to the software or that Yuzu are infringing on any of their copyrights as such. So no, there's no reason this lawsuit would involve any such takedown notices.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 28 February 2024 at 3:55 pm UTC

Worst thing is to think that, before this nonsense, I was willing to pay Nintendo if they ever decided to provide roms of their older consoles, so that I may legally run them on my emulators.

I personnally hacked my Wii console and installed USBLoader because the disk drive was starting to fail. I ripped and mounted all my legally bought games on an external drive, for preservation. It gave a second life to the console and it's even more enjoyable, now.

Oh well...

Edit: Even if I totally dislike Nintendo's behavior, the problem I see with Yuzu it's the fact that they emulate the current gen console... This is not about preservation, in this case. The Switch doesn't yet need preservation... When the Switch 2 is out, maybe then. Yuzu is too early for it's pretended purpose. Just saying. Don't hate me, please.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 28 February 2024 at 4:18 pm UTC

Quoting: MohandevirWorst thing is to think that, before this nonsense, I was willing to pay Nintendo if they ever decided to provide roms of their older consoles, so that I may legally run them on my emulators.

I would've been, too, to be honest. But knowing them, even if Satan were to ice-skate to work while some pigs soar overhead one fine morning and Nintendo did do something like this, it would be saddled with Denuvo or some other similar rootkit, anyway.

Hmm, Nintendo being Nintendo again. Somehow nobody that I know IRL can understand why I will not purchase any products from them.

Quoting: neon_soaked_chryssalidSomehow nobody that I know IRL can understand why I will not purchase any products from them.

Nintendo fans will even run other fans out of town for daring to hold the company accountable for their mistakes and poor decisions*, so I'm not surprised somehow. (Yeah, I never fit in with them even when I was a fan.)

*Gotta love excuses like "You should be grateful!" and "At least they tried.". No way, they're a huge company demanding a lot of money for their products - they're not doing stuff out of the goodness of their hearts!


Last edited by Pengling on 28 February 2024 at 5:06 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestThis is why I never have and never will buy anything from Nintendo. Japanese litigious approaches are downright repulsive.

I'm glad I don't care for their games anymore for over past two decades and yuzu doesn't scratch my itch to play anything they make on the Switch. Besides, I'm happy with the Steam Deck because I can play a lot of non-Nintendo games they get but better and I actually buy the games I want to play at better prices versus the eShop. At least I know I can continue to access them on a PC or elsewhere without having it get stuck on the Steam Deck if it ever dies or I sell it for whatever reason (not that I would) versus having the game get stuck on a Switch with no guarantee if the newer systems they make in the future will play them.

Quoting: neon_soaked_chryssalidHmm, Nintendo being Nintendo again. Somehow nobody that I know IRL can understand why I will not purchase any products from them.

Don't worry, it's better if they don't know than to know. At least the people I know IRL understand and somewhat agree with me why I don't like Nintendo.


Last edited by ToddL on 28 February 2024 at 6:03 pm UTC

A summary article from TorrentFreak: https://torrentfreak.com/nintendos-yuzu-lawsuit-aims-to-pour-banana-peels-over-all-emulators-240228/

QuoteDespite Bunnei’s alleged importance, the only defendant listed in the complaint is Tropic Haze LLC and Nintendo provides almost no information about the company, including details of ownership or control, despite claiming that its sole business is to “develop and distribute unlawful circumvention software.”

It necessarily follows that ‘Bunnei’ is not listed as a defendant, Doe or otherwise. In fact, the language used by Nintendo throughout the complaint suggests that it either has no idea of Bunnei’s true identity or may have gone to considerable lengths to give that impression.

What lies behind this, if anything, is unclear, but there’s a strong possibility that sooner or later, pressure to settle will likely enter the equation. Right now, there are no real names in the complaint, but that could be changed in an instant, at least if any are currently known.

TorrentFreak was also curious about what exactly Tropic Haze LLC is. They didn't get any further than me.