Yuzu agrees to pay Nintendo $2.4 million and will entirely shut down (Citra for 3DS too)

Legally it is, yeah. But ethically... maybe?

In case you download something you'd have bought otherwise, or sell copies of someone else's property, sure it's theft. However, if you weren't going to pay for it anyway, then what? How can it be theft if nobody loses anything? Or if it actually has the effect of increasing sales, as shown by the famous EU studies on the subject of piracy. But never mind, this topic has been discussed to death already.

Wouldn't this argument legitimate all open source license violations?

Nobody would pay for it anyway. True
Nobody loses anything. True
Has a positive effect on sales? It's not sold in the first place. But it gets used more.

USA: you can ban the distribution of an emulator because it is used to play unauthorized game copies, but well, you cannot ban guns distribution even when they are unfortunately used from time to time to kill innocent people. God bless America

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/denuvo-investigation-reportedly-leads-to-arrest-for-games-pirate-voksi

Since the article is behind a paywall: Does it contain any other content than this article? https://www.pcgamer.com/denuvo-sues-voski-the-pirate-who-helped-crack-it/

Since the latter doesn't contain any outcome, just that the cracker was in fact not arrested & would probably face charges.

There's no unfairness or injustice here. Nintendo does have deep pockets and throws its weight around but in this case there was no abuse. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation calls reverse engineering protection systems "legally risky". Businesses have been created around protecting game developers against Switch emulation. You don't pay someone to protect you unless you expect to lose sales, which makes obvious that harm has been done.

The monopolist nintendo might lose some sales to people that make a bit of money by reverse engineering nintendo's product, using their own time and effort and expertise, in order to free users from the hardware prison that nintendo feels is necessary maximize its profits. Then, nintendo uses the state and courts as useful idiots to enforce their hardware-prison business model at gunpoint.

Manufacturing of Nintendo 3DS stopped over 4 years ago. After last year the Nintendo eShop is completely shut down so even customers who have original hardware cannot purchase digital games. So Nintendo makes no money from neither hardware nor software but they still went after Citra. This is a serious blow to game preservation.

You know why I think this is, and what I think's going to happen?

My guess is that they went after Yuzu now because, if current reports and suggestions from parts-manufacturers are to be believed, the Switch's successor will be revealed sometime within the next year, and will use an SoC in the same Nvidia family as the current hardware uses - had Yuzu continued, we'd probably have seen day-one emulation of it (same as happened with the Game Boy Advance).

I reckon they've gone after Citra as well, and will go after Dolphin again next, because they'll be adding GameCube, Wii, and 3DS games to their online subscription service as part of the hype-cycle for the "Switch 2". (Even though, as always, it'll be a teeny-tiny drip-feed that doesn't even come close to covering what was actually available for all of those machines.)


Last edited by Pengling on 5 March 2024 at 3:17 pm UTC

I do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

I do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

I do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

Ok, so problem was not a way to play games on PC, but release games on Nintendo hardware, without asking Nintendo for it. It is battle with moders. Even MS get money from modding XBox (Linux media player was very popular in early days of XBox).

I do not known English well, so I do not understood everything. As I understood, they emulator allows to play games outside authorized (by Nintendo!) hardware. But, I do not seen anything related to piracy. They mention users use they emulator to piracy, but how? By playing games on PC? Perhaps, Nintendo should not have rights to restrict this. I only reminder, that British government, many years ago, discovered they cannot opens document created in old Office Suite. They decided to switch to OpenOffice, so MS decided to "standardize" (pheff) OOXML. What about case, when you cannot longer play "your" games, because your hardware were broken and cannot buy new?

Parts in the DMCA prohibits sale, distribution and manufacturing of software or hardware that circumvents digital protections. So the issue here is that the emulator circumvented Nintendo's DRM that they use to sell licenses for to for companies to allow them to release software for the platform. And this circumventium is more than "ignore to check", it involves using the encryption keys built into the Switch itself.

Ok, so problem was not a way to play games on PC, but release games on Nintendo hardware, without asking Nintendo for it. It is battle with moders. Even MS get money from modding XBox (Linux media player was very popular in early days of XBox).

Basically yes, plus that even if the user had to extract the keys from their local Switch there was nothing stopping people from sharing that key or from any one extracting their key and then reselling the Switch but keep using the extracted key. I don't know for sure but it is also possible that the emulation allows for game files to be distributed (aka piracy) freely while the Switch only allows bought copies to be played.

Wouldn't this argument legitimate all open source license violations?

I don't see how. Downloading or sharing open source software doesn't violate its license.

Don't close door too fast. Yuzu was open source.
Here is a fork among others: https://github.com/yuzu-mirror/yuzu

I would recommend that the next people who take the code and continue developing it under a different name, host it in some place like the EU and have some kind of region lock where they don't allow downloads from places with DMCA-type anti-digital-lock-tampering laws. Of course, since the code is open and all some people will then mirror it in other places and it will become available around the world--but that will not be the core project's fault, as they will be taking due measures to prevent it.

EU is a terrible idea as it is under US jurisdiction being US vassal states. The EU has gone after piracy before (Sweden, Italy, Germany). Russia/Belarus/China are much better about it, especially now

But this isn't about piracy. Oh, sure, they can say they were "enabling" piracy, but the key issue is that they allegedly enabled the piracy by enabling tampering with a "digital lock" (encryption, DRM et cetera). Such tampering is forbidden under the DMCA, and there are similar provisions in other countries. But it's entirely legal in the EU, is if anything a consumer right.

And while the EU is definitely under the US thumb in terms of geopolitics, their regimes in terms of laws around computing and telecommunications are really quite different, whether it's about privacy, competition or "intellectual property", and the EU shows no signs of interest in harmonizing their approach with the US one.

I was under the impression that the EU would bow head to US based, DMCA takedown orders?

Moreover, I am skeptical of the "pro-consumer claims" that people have of the EU. I heard that some crack scene groups got sent to prison in Germany for tampering with Denuvo, if anything thats anticonsumer

No that is not at all how things work. The DMCA is only legal inside the US, the EU have a (in some areas) similar EUCD so if a US firm wants to file a "DMCA" on a EU based entity then they have to actually file it as a EUCD so they have to change their filings to match the laws of the EUCD.

No EU country is under the US jurisdiction and none of the EU states are US vassal states. That e.g the Pirate Bay was sued in civil court in Sweden have zero to do with the US and more to do with the fact that copyright laws exists in most countries on earth and that from long before the US was even a state.

In fact the Pirate Bay got one of the best defence lawyers available especially since the system works so different over here (over here the looser always pays the entire costs for both sides so there exists very few US like cases where the case is drawn out to drain the other sides resources).

If you think that EU is not US vassal states, you should go watch the videos of Professor Mearsheimer where he talks about how US dictates policy for EU. It kind of works like the Mongolian Imperial model, where they would not bother their vassals and gave them a degree of autonomy until they needed something from them. Same thing here. This is why for example, Germany shot its own industry in the foot by boycotting Russian energy or not saying anything when the US blew up Nordstream 2.

https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-asks-eu-for-iptv-torrents-piracy-support-services-crackdown-220408/

Here's an example of the MPA acting in the EU to shut down IPTV services. There are also APAA actions. There is also a DMCA takedown procedure in the EU:
https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/European-DMCA-Takedown-process

So yes, US jurisdiction expands to the EU. How could it not, when the US literally has troops in Europe? You think that the US would let Europe act independently on issues it deems of vital importance (and protecting US business is of vital importance to it)?

If you follow your own link on the DMCA you'll read the exact same thing regarding the EUCD that I wrote in the post that you are now arguing with.

No, US jurisdiction does not apply in the EU (the US having troops in Europe due to NATO have zero to do with legal jurisdiction, this is a huge non sequitur), the US did not blow up Nordstream 2 (all evidence so far points towards Ukraine, Ukraine supporters in eastern Europe or false flag by Russia).

All this in combination with you bringing up Mearsheimer only tells me that you are posting Russian conspiracy theories.

If you read the link I sent it says:

"DMCA.com is qualified to go to work on behalf of copyright and content owners." this means that EU upholds US copyright claims/law.

US having troops in Europe as part of NATO is precisely what I mean lol. The entire point is to both be a "defensive" alliance and act as an implied threat to European countries to stay within the desired boundaries that the US sets. Its very similar to the Warsaw Pact in that regard. In fact the US has an extensive regieme change history in both Europe, amongst allies and abroad as well.

The US did blow up Nordstream 2, its fairly well known by now. See this investigation by pultizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

If you also account for the fact that Sweden did an investigation, said they know who did it but then covered it up further lends credence to Seymour's idea. Ukraine does not have the capability to blow up the pipeline. And it doesn't make sense for Russia to blow up their own pipe/money maker, and Russians are rational actors unlike as is commonly portrayed.

Point is this, EU is not really an independent actor and will do what they are told by the US. We have seen this multiple times, with Huawei bans (although neither UK nor German probes found anything of concern), Russian gas bans and if needed with piracy as well.

Sorry but you are utterly confused (or deliberately obtuse). DMCA.com is a company that specialises in takedowns the world over, that they have named their company DMCA doesn't mean that they use the DMCA outside of the USA, it only means that they have decided to call their company this. Cheesus.

And no the actual evidence from the Swedish Navy points directly to Ukrainians or Russians, Ukrainians due to the people that hired the boat that allegedly conducted the attack and Russia due to them having placed lots of navy ships there inside Swedish waters just before the attack.

The major problem with the USA angle is that the USA had nothing to gain from blowing it up, the USA had already convinced Germany et al to stop using it so Nordstream was defacto a dead project already (thanks to the pipe being not used the explosion wasn't bigger than it was). The only ones having a reason to do it is #1 Ukraine to retaliate against Russia and #2 Russia to cry wolf.


Last edited by F.Ultra on 5 March 2024 at 4:47 pm UTC

While this is not a endorsement for Nintendo's behavior, I thought it was common sense you don't create a emulator for a videogame still on sale, or else the manufacturers will send their minions after you.

There are a lot of emulators and even commercial products for previous Nintendo consoles, and I don't see Nintendo going after those.

Like others said above, I think it was pretty dumb of those guys for not only making a emulator for the Switch so soon, but establishing a company based on it. Is like painting a target in their foreheads.


Last edited by M@GOid on 5 March 2024 at 5:12 pm UTC

I don't see how. Downloading or sharing open source software doesn't violate its license.

We're talking about "piracy" (i.e. license violations), so obviously by using it in violation of the license.

I don't see how. Downloading or sharing open source software doesn't violate its license.

We're talking about "piracy" (i.e. license violations), so obviously by using it in violation of the license.

Well that's a stretch. You might as well compare piracy to car theft. We're talking about crime after all.

There are a lot of emulators and even commercial products for previous Nintendo consoles, and I don't see Nintendo going after those.

Nintendo went after Citra as part of this, too - the Nintendo 3DS has been out-of-production since September 2020, repair-services for it ended in March 2021 (which was earlier than originally intended - they ran out of parts early, apparently), and the digital-download eShop was closed in March 2023, which led to numerous digital-only games locked to this console being lost to time.

They also recently went after Dolphin, which covers the GameCube and Wii, which went out of production in 2009 and 2013 respectively.

Well that's a stretch.

I don't understand what you mean.

You might as well compare piracy to car theft. We're talking about crime after all.

That doesn't help me in understanding. I'm really talking about license violations (e.g. using Linux without providing the source code).

Well that's a stretch.

I don't understand what you mean.

You might as well compare piracy to car theft. We're talking about crime after all.

That doesn't help me in understanding. I'm really talking about license violations (e.g. using Linux without providing the source code).

I'm saying that downloading and privately playing (not sharing, not selling) a copy of a game from the internet is not the same as doing something completely different that breaks the terms of a license. It's a false equivalence.

Note that I'm not advocating piracy. I'm not partaking in it either. I was simply "thinking aloud" about the ethical implications. And I'm regretting it already. I haven't seen a fresh argument on the subject in years.

Businesses have been created around protecting game developers against Switch emulation. You don't pay someone to protect you unless you expect to lose sales, which makes obvious that harm has been done.

Say what now? If you think you will lose sales on other platforms, then you make your game available on those platforms, you don't pay for some protection racket. That sounds pretty Mafia?

Maybe my wording was confusing. The platform is irrelevant. You can lose Switch sales due to piracy of Switch games, but also other platforms.

Making a game available to multiple platforms isn't trivial, though it can be made easier if you build the game for it from the beginning. It's also a business, so if you will invest more money porting than what you'll earn, it's not financially justified.
Then again, you don't have the right to order an author to do something with their work, even if it's beneficial for them or you.

There were products created to provide DRM targeting protection from Switch emulation specifically. They are not leaking games if they don't get paid. Your comment reads as a reply to something different from what I wrote.

Idk why emulator devs are dumb enough to do this kinda stuff in the West. Its the same with pirate sites/groups - if you wanna do this do it in a place where US jurisdiction can't reach you. Like Russia, Belarus or China. If Yuzu was in Russia/Belarus/China it would be untouchable.

This! Why not just relaunch Yuzu in one of these countries or some country with same position? How could we just accept this what has happened, Nintendo got richer and eff all game preservation means and good work by Yuzu down the drain.