5 ms·

> 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 b

> 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?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    The law doesn't work on strict abstract principles. Windows has a million uses of which piracy is just one. Yuzu has two uses (playing legitimate backups and pirated backups), of which Nintendo may successfully argue, both are piracy (due to the circumvention of encryption in both cases). In which case, the only possible use in 99.9%+ of cases... is for illegal activity.
    - tavavex 3y ago
      I don't think it's likely that software developers can be sued on the grounds of "some people use it for illegal activity". Can IP rights holders sue any torrent tracker on that basis? Not to mention that playing backups of your own games is explicitly legal in many places, and I'd be shocked if it isn't in the US. Lastly, one can make an argument that the purpose of Yuzu isn't playing "Switch games", but emulating the Switch hardware stack, which is legal. For example, writing your own Switch homebrew and running it on Yuzu is permitted.
    - wtetzner 3y ago
      > Yuzu has two uses (playing legitimate backups and pirated backups) And maybe for developing homebrew games?
- resizeitplz 3y ago
  With apologies for the pedantry, they didn't make it _infinitely_ worse. They may have made it _significantly_ worse.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  What do you mean they just need to show that it made it worse ? What are you basing that on? I don't know of any similar cases where an emulator or say, a video player (for example Kodi) was held liable for increasing demand?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  One thing to take into account is that civil trials don't require the absolute highest standards of proof, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually much lower evidentiary standards such as "preponderance of the evidence" and other malarky.
jsheard 3y ago
> Common sense suggests emulation would be significantly more common, but can Nintendo prove that in court Nintendo is making that argument on the basis that Yuzu's Patreon income skyrocketed when TOTK leaked online. https://graphtreon.com/creator/yuzuteam https://graphtreon.com/creator/yuzuteam It checks out, TOTK leaked on May 1st 2023 and Yuzus monthly income rose from $19k to $45k throughout May, having never broken $25k previously.
- tavavex 3y ago
  I'm confused as to how or why the Yuzu team would be held liable for this. Is it their responsibility to ensure that people don't donate money to them if the timing of that donation coincides with an unrelated leak of Nintendo's IP? If emulation is allowed and the Yuzu team itself isn't engaging in the promotion of piracy, I don't see what the case is here.
  - ndiddy 3y ago
    At the time Zelda leaked, it didn't work correctly in the release version of Yuzu. The lawsuit claims that the Yuzu team released a patched version that fixed the issue before the game's official retail launch date, but they have some sort of exclusivity period (looks like one week as far as I can tell) where new releases are exclusive to their Patreon before they become freely available. Nintendo is arguing that the large boost in Patreon subscribers was due to people wanting to get access to the patch so they could play Zelda early.
    - tavavex 3y ago
      I think this would be a big issue for them if they specifically marketed it as "the Zelda fix" or insinuated that the only purpose of that update was to make this leaked game playable. Otherwise, they could just say that updates address the dissimilarities between the Switch hardware and the emulator. How can Nintendo prove ill intent here?
      - Lammy 3y ago

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?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  The law doesn't work on strict abstract principles. Windows has a million uses of which piracy is just one. Yuzu has two uses (playing legitimate backups and pirated backups), of which Nintendo may successfully argue, both are piracy (due to the circumvention of encryption in both cases). In which case, the only possible use in 99.9%+ of cases... is for illegal activity.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    I don't think it's likely that software developers can be sued on the grounds of "some people use it for illegal activity". Can IP rights holders sue any torrent tracker on that basis? Not to mention that playing backups of your own games is explicitly legal in many places, and I'd be shocked if it isn't in the US. Lastly, one can make an argument that the purpose of Yuzu isn't playing "Switch games", but emulating the Switch hardware stack, which is legal. For example, writing your own Switch homebrew and running it on Yuzu is permitted.
  - wtetzner 3y ago
    > Yuzu has two uses (playing legitimate backups and pirated backups) And maybe for developing homebrew games?
resizeitplz 3y ago
With apologies for the pedantry, they didn't make it _infinitely_ worse. They may have made it _significantly_ worse.
mardifoufs 3y ago
What do you mean they just need to show that it made it worse ? What are you basing that on? I don't know of any similar cases where an emulator or say, a video player (for example Kodi) was held liable for increasing demand?
qingcharles 3y ago
One thing to take into account is that civil trials don't require the absolute highest standards of proof, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually much lower evidentiary standards such as "preponderance of the evidence" and other malarky.

jsheard 3y ago

> Common sense suggests emulation would be significantly more common, but can Nintendo prove that in court Nintendo is making that argument on the basis that Yuzu's Patreon income skyrocketed when TOTK leaked online. https://graphtreon.com/creator/yuzuteam https://graphtreon.com/creator/yuzuteam It checks out, TOTK leaked on May 1st 2023 and Yuzus monthly income rose from $19k to $45k throughout May, having never broken $25k previously.

tavavex 3y ago
I'm confused as to how or why the Yuzu team would be held liable for this. Is it their responsibility to ensure that people don't donate money to them if the timing of that donation coincides with an unrelated leak of Nintendo's IP? If emulation is allowed and the Yuzu team itself isn't engaging in the promotion of piracy, I don't see what the case is here.
- ndiddy 3y ago
  At the time Zelda leaked, it didn't work correctly in the release version of Yuzu. The lawsuit claims that the Yuzu team released a patched version that fixed the issue before the game's official retail launch date, but they have some sort of exclusivity period (looks like one week as far as I can tell) where new releases are exclusive to their Patreon before they become freely available. Nintendo is arguing that the large boost in Patreon subscribers was due to people wanting to get access to the patch so they could play Zelda early.
  - tavavex 3y ago
    I think this would be a big issue for them if they specifically marketed it as "the Zelda fix" or insinuated that the only purpose of that update was to make this leaked game playable. Otherwise, they could just say that updates address the dissimilarities between the Switch hardware and the emulator. How can Nintendo prove ill intent here?
    - Lammy 3y ago