3 ms·

> [4] "On information and belief, Yuzu users have (1) dumped Nintendo games they have lawfully purchased and copied the game ROMs into Yuzu; and (2) obtained Ni

> [4] "On information and belief, Yuzu users have (1) dumped Nintendo games they have lawfully purchased and copied the game ROMs into Yuzu; and (2) obtained Nintendo games online from pirate websites and copied those game ROMs into Yuzu. Each such reproduction constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) for which Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 and injunctive relief under § 502" How on earth can they claim that the developers of Yuzu are responsible for copying done by their users?

withinboredom 3y ago
Write a letter to your congress-person. Laws can say whatever they want them to say.
dubcanada 3y ago
You can claim what ever the hell you want, doesn't mean it will last longer then 5 seconds in court. It's very common people make outlandish claims, these then get dismantled by a judge and jury into usually 1 that sticks. Even though you went in with 50. That's the whole point of court.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Agreed. Most law suits throw everything at the wall and then see what sticks. The first thing the defense will always do is file a Motion to Dismiss listing a reason that each count of the suit fails to state a claim.
monocasa 3y ago
Because "trafficking in a circumvention device" has it's own special carveout in the DMCA.
- Root_Denied 3y ago
  That's a pretty broad definition of "device" Nintendo is using there.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    Not any more broad than that used against DeCSS.
zerocrates 3y ago
There's a concept of "contributory" infringement: while you're not personally infringing the copyright, you know about the infringement and you're helping it, encouraging it, and so on. This is what the studios sued Sony under for the Betamax. Of course, they lost, and that precedent is helpful for Yuzu, though not a total slam dunk: what they wrote on their website in terms of marketing and instructions and so on could matter here, what the devs wrote to each other or publicly that might reveal their knowledge and encouragement of infringement could matter, etc. More significant is that the Betamax case is from the 80s and precedes the DMCA. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are broad and have been interpreted broadly. The result is that the decryption is a problem all on its own, regardless of things like fair use that were a major factor in Sony's victory. It's worth noting that Nintendo's first three claims are DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention claims, with the other claims of personal infringement by the developers and contributory infringement (where the part you quoted is from) being kind of tacked on at the end.
- nodamage 3y ago
  Sony Music also sued Cox (and won) on willful contributory infringement because they were aware specific users were repeatedly sharing copyrighted material and still continued offering service to those users.

withinboredom 3y ago

Write a letter to your congress-person. Laws can say whatever they want them to say.

dubcanada 3y ago

You can claim what ever the hell you want, doesn't mean it will last longer then 5 seconds in court. It's very common people make outlandish claims, these then get dismantled by a judge and jury into usually 1 that sticks. Even though you went in with 50. That's the whole point of court.

qingcharles 3y ago
Agreed. Most law suits throw everything at the wall and then see what sticks. The first thing the defense will always do is file a Motion to Dismiss listing a reason that each count of the suit fails to state a claim.

monocasa 3y ago

Because "trafficking in a circumvention device" has it's own special carveout in the DMCA.

Root_Denied 3y ago
That's a pretty broad definition of "device" Nintendo is using there.
- monocasa 3y ago
  Not any more broad than that used against DeCSS.

zerocrates 3y ago

There's a concept of "contributory" infringement: while you're not personally infringing the copyright, you know about the infringement and you're helping it, encouraging it, and so on. This is what the studios sued Sony under for the Betamax. Of course, they lost, and that precedent is helpful for Yuzu, though not a total slam dunk: what they wrote on their website in terms of marketing and instructions and so on could matter here, what the devs wrote to each other or publicly that might reveal their knowledge and encouragement of infringement could matter, etc. More significant is that the Betamax case is from the 80s and precedes the DMCA. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are broad and have been interpreted broadly. The result is that the decryption is a problem all on its own, regardless of things like fair use that were a major factor in Sony's victory. It's worth noting that Nintendo's first three claims are DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention claims, with the other claims of personal infringement by the developers and contributory infringement (where the part you quoted is from) being kind of tacked on at the end.

nodamage 3y ago
Sony Music also sued Cox (and won) on willful contributory infringement because they were aware specific users were repeatedly sharing copyrighted material and still continued offering service to those users.