6 ms·

> The legal document claims that over a million copies of last year's The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom were downloaded prior to the game's official ret

> The legal document claims that over a million copies of last year's The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom were downloaded prior to the game's official retail release. As a result, the company is now seeking damages and is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down. Quite the leap from existing as an emulator to inexplicably being held liable for some independent leak.

a_vanderbilt 3y ago
It is also fully their fault the game was leaked early. They released the game carts to buyers too early, and their system5 crypto scheme was already broken by the time the game came out. Yuzu didn't break system5, nor do they ship the keys needed to decrypt the dumped game files. They did release patches which specifically fixed issues with Zelda, and that wasn't a good look legally - but it isn't illegal to fix inaccuracies with the software.
- GabrielTFS 3y ago
  I have not heard of anything indicating they themselves released patches fixing issues with ToTK - only that other people made patches for that which the Yuzu team refused to accept until ToTK release. I don't see how random people making patches for an open source project should make the project liable for the existence of the patches.
  - a_vanderbilt 3y ago
    That's a great clarification. I think you bring up a great point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gjsman-1000 3y ago
Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential; and considering how easy it is to show the percentage of pirating users versus legitimate users (probably 95%+), it's not a good look. There's also the issue that, unlike prior emulators, Yuzu risks running afoul of DMCA anti-trafficking provisions for circumvention devices and software that uses circumvention devices. So, while per se emulating the Switch might be legal, decrypting the games may be illegal (as would software that is useless if it is unable to do that decryption). Edit: Strongly recommend reading my follow up comment explaining historical precedent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39530558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39530558
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  There are other emulators besides Yuzu and they would still exist if Yuzu didn't.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  I'd say most piracy is people with an actual console that they have modded to load pirated games.
  - KeplerBoy 3y ago
    Impossible to say. Downloading yuzu and watching a YouTube video to get roms going is easier than obtaining a modded switch, that one is certain.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- bentley 3y ago
  > Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential… Well, no. Pirated Switch games can be played on a hacked Switch or a flashcart with no emulation necessary. Common sense suggests emulation would be significantly more common, but can Nintendo prove that in court, or prove that the leak wouldn’t have happened without Yuzu’s existence?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Nintendo can't prove the leak wouldn't have happened without Yuzu. But they don't have to. They can simply show that Yuzu made it infinitely worse. Also, suing Yuzu does not preclude suing emulator makers or flashcart makers - they can all be sued as they all have culpability.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
      So can companies of leaved PC games sue nvidia or windows?
burnte 3y ago
When you file a lawsuit, you make it seem like the biggest thing since WW2, because it'll be cut down in court over time to a more reasonable level.
realusername 3y ago
There's actually multiple arguments with zero proof there. - they didn't prove that Yuzu contributed to piracy (and since the amount of piracy tools on the Switch itself that's far from obvious that Yuzu is a first choice) - they didn't prove that the leak itself lead to a loss of revenue. And that's also very hard of an argument to make considering that this game was a huge commercial success.
- gknoy 3y ago
  Does loss of revenue matter at all? It feels like it should, but I had thought that it didn't matter in courts.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    If you want to get a lot of money from the defendant, you usually have to prove damages.
  - inyorgroove 3y ago
    From my podcast law degree, in civil action like this yes. To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      > To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply. Not in copyright cases. You have to show harm for actual damages, but copyright has statutory damages: you only need to demonstrate a violation of the law (the copyright statutes) for damages [1]: > In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights.[35] However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees.[48] (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.) Statutory damages do not need to correspond to actual damages [2]: > The charges allow copyright holders, who succeed with claims of infringement, to receive an amount of compensation per work (as opposed to compensation for losses, an account of profits or damages per infringing copy). Statutory damages can in some cases be significantly more than the actual damages suffered by the rightsholder or the profits of the infringer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Registration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Registration [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyrigh...
bitwize 3y ago
It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case: if a television broadcast aired once and only once, never to be seen again, and the user could not see it as scheduled, they were legally entitled to use a device to record the broadcast and watch it at a later time -- once, after which they would presumably have to destroy the recording. And there are legal experts who believe even that is a yard too far. Nintendo's case is a lot more airtight. To play anything on yuzu, you have to defeat the encryption on Switch games, itself a felony DMCA violation (irrespective of how good or bad the encryption is). Therefore, yuzu can only be used to play pirated material, therefore it contributes to copyright infringement. "But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  > people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo Licensed development only allows publishing Nintendo-approved games through Nintendo-licensed publishers who sell into Nintendo-approved channels, which the vast majority of stuff in the homebrew scene wouldn't qualify for.
- wtetzner 3y ago
  > "But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu. Just because you can get a license from Nintendo doesn't mean the emulator isn't useful for development.
- bentley 3y ago
  > It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case… That 1984 Supreme Court decision was a 5–4 ruling. Can you imagine the deleterious effect on the home electronics industry if, in 1984, a single justice had voted the other way, and the VCR had been ruled an inherently infringing device?

a_vanderbilt 3y ago

It is also fully their fault the game was leaked early. They released the game carts to buyers too early, and their system5 crypto scheme was already broken by the time the game came out. Yuzu didn't break system5, nor do they ship the keys needed to decrypt the dumped game files. They did release patches which specifically fixed issues with Zelda, and that wasn't a good look legally - but it isn't illegal to fix inaccuracies with the software.

GabrielTFS 3y ago
I have not heard of anything indicating they themselves released patches fixing issues with ToTK - only that other people made patches for that which the Yuzu team refused to accept until ToTK release. I don't see how random people making patches for an open source project should make the project liable for the existence of the patches.
- a_vanderbilt 3y ago
  That's a great clarification. I think you bring up a great point.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential; and considering how easy it is to show the percentage of pirating users versus legitimate users (probably 95%+), it's not a good look. There's also the issue that, unlike prior emulators, Yuzu risks running afoul of DMCA anti-trafficking provisions for circumvention devices and software that uses circumvention devices. So, while per se emulating the Switch might be legal, decrypting the games may be illegal (as would software that is useless if it is unable to do that decryption). Edit: Strongly recommend reading my follow up comment explaining historical precedent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39530558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39530558

yamazakiwi 3y ago
There are other emulators besides Yuzu and they would still exist if Yuzu didn't.
Gigachad 3y ago
I'd say most piracy is people with an actual console that they have modded to load pirated games.
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  Impossible to say. Downloading yuzu and watching a YouTube video to get roms going is easier than obtaining a modded switch, that one is certain.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
bentley 3y ago
> Not necessarily. It's fairly easy to prove that if the emulator did not exist, the leak would be fairly inconsequential… Well, no. Pirated Switch games can be played on a hacked Switch or a flashcart with no emulation necessary. Common sense suggests emulation would be significantly more common, but can Nintendo prove that in court, or prove that the leak wouldn’t have happened without Yuzu’s existence?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Nintendo can't prove the leak wouldn't have happened without Yuzu. But they don't have to. They can simply show that Yuzu made it infinitely worse. Also, suing Yuzu does not preclude suing emulator makers or flashcart makers - they can all be sued as they all have culpability.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    So can companies of leaved PC games sue nvidia or windows?

burnte 3y ago

When you file a lawsuit, you make it seem like the biggest thing since WW2, because it'll be cut down in court over time to a more reasonable level.

realusername 3y ago

There's actually multiple arguments with zero proof there. - they didn't prove that Yuzu contributed to piracy (and since the amount of piracy tools on the Switch itself that's far from obvious that Yuzu is a first choice) - they didn't prove that the leak itself lead to a loss of revenue. And that's also very hard of an argument to make considering that this game was a huge commercial success.

gknoy 3y ago
Does loss of revenue matter at all? It feels like it should, but I had thought that it didn't matter in courts.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  If you want to get a lot of money from the defendant, you usually have to prove damages.
- inyorgroove 3y ago
  From my podcast law degree, in civil action like this yes. To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply. Not in copyright cases. You have to show harm for actual damages, but copyright has statutory damages: you only need to demonstrate a violation of the law (the copyright statutes) for damages [1]: > In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights.[35] However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees.[48] (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.) Statutory damages do not need to correspond to actual damages [2]: > The charges allow copyright holders, who succeed with claims of infringement, to receive an amount of compensation per work (as opposed to compensation for losses, an account of profits or damages per infringing copy). Statutory damages can in some cases be significantly more than the actual damages suffered by the rightsholder or the profits of the infringer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Registration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Registration [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyrigh...

bitwize 3y ago

It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case: if a television broadcast aired once and only once, never to be seen again, and the user could not see it as scheduled, they were legally entitled to use a device to record the broadcast and watch it at a later time -- once, after which they would presumably have to destroy the recording. And there are legal experts who believe even that is a yard too far. Nintendo's case is a lot more airtight. To play anything on yuzu, you have to defeat the encryption on Switch games, itself a felony DMCA violation (irrespective of how good or bad the encryption is). Therefore, yuzu can only be used to play pirated material, therefore it contributes to copyright infringement. "But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
> people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo Licensed development only allows publishing Nintendo-approved games through Nintendo-licensed publishers who sell into Nintendo-approved channels, which the vast majority of stuff in the homebrew scene wouldn't qualify for.
wtetzner 3y ago
> "But muh homebrew" -- people who want to develop for Switch can get a development license from Nintendo. The fact that this is an option would weaken developing for Switch as a legitimate use for yuzu. Just because you can get a license from Nintendo doesn't mean the emulator isn't useful for development.
bentley 3y ago
> It's called contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court only ruled that the VCR was legal based on a very narrow use case… That 1984 Supreme Court decision was a 5–4 ruling. Can you imagine the deleterious effect on the home electronics industry if, in 1984, a single justice had voted the other way, and the VCR had been ruled an inherently infringing device?