10 ms·

> As a result, Nintendo ... is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down. When corporations like Uber violate multiple laws, do they get shut down? When Am

> As a result, Nintendo ... is demanding that the Yuzu emulator is shut down. When corporations like Uber violate multiple laws, do they get shut down? When Amazon treats its employees poorly, does it get shut down? When Google forbids manufacturers to pre-install competitor apps, does it get shut down? Well, it seems that as long as copyright is not infringed, everything is ok. Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there.

ambigious7777 3y ago
Man, the US copyright system is broken :^(
extheat 3y ago
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. Unless the lawsuit is in bad faith and meritless (only a court can make that determination), there is no argument to be had about "lawfare". The only difference here and in other companies is that Nintendo actually follows through with their legal threats instead of just filing complaints they don't intend to take to court.
- acyou 3y ago
  If we don't like companies abusing their power, we can complain and decide not to buy the products of companies doing that sort of thing, and support their competitors. There's only so far courts takes you, for a consumer company the real trial is most definitely in the public court of opinion.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    I can't see their user base (or should I say fans?) caring about some cheap-ass emulator crowd. Nintendo's cash cow is people who buy consoles, games and accessories for thousands bucks, not tinkerers. More general public (i.e. moms looking for kids' presents) wouldn't give to shits about any legal buggery either.
- rymiel 3y ago
  The determination by the "court" doesn't really matter here. The party with the bigger wallet wins, "bad faith" doesn't mean anything.
justinclift 3y ago
Yeah, it's a pretty stark illustration of "we have enough money to fuck you up, and are very willing to do so". "Might makes right" in action. Your monopoly point is an interesting one. Wonder if there's an actual legal case there, as Nintendo have done a lot of this bullying over the years.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  No, there isn’t. Companies choose to put games on Nintendo, many games are available on multiple consoles including Nintendo, and depending on the generation Nintendo is not even always the biggest player. There’s no illegal monopoly. One is certainly allowed to have a monopoly over their own products, that’s what trademarks and patents are for. It’s hard to argue a game developer is forced to play ball with Nintendo.
  - roughly 3y ago
    Why does this logic fall down for Apple? Is it size? Is the argument different if it were Microsoft doing similar with XBox?
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      Well, Apple is part of a duopoly. Nintendo is not. It’s kind of silly to call somebody a monopolist when they only have a small percentage of market share. In fact, they aren’t even in the top three video game companies, and their hardware is just a reason to sell software. 85% of the revenue comes from first party games. Their revenue is less than 10% of the entire gaming industry. For some reason, people insist on thinking of them as a hardware company that also makes games, when the reality has been the reverse for decades. There are a whole lot of ways to distribute a video game. Three major consoles. Computers. Things like the steam deck. Smart phones. You could ignore any one or two of them, and still have a great business. In fact, lots of companies do. A whole lot of people have access to more than one of these platforms. You could ignore anyone or two of these platforms, and still sell your product to most of the people in the market. It is a highly competitive environment. If you don’t like Nintendo’s policies, just sell on Xbox and PlayStation and steam. People do this. If an environment is competitive, then by definition, nobody has a monopoly or an unfair advantage. The Earth has 8 billion people, most of whom have a smart phone, all of which are using one of two operating systems. Not many people have more than one. If Apple says your app cannot be in their App Store, half of humanity, cannot use your app. It is a much different scenario.
Kranar 3y ago
There were tons and TONS of ride sharing apps that got shut down as Uber was becoming popular due to regulatory violations: Sidecar, Juno, Poparide, Heetch, Taxify, and there are probably hundreds that got shut down in local markets. Plenty of companies get shut down for regulatory violations, or employee mistreatment. Pointing at some extreme outliers is nothing more than a form of selection bias.
- fcsp 3y ago
  Why didn't Uber though? Is it just enough money to buy the right lobbyists and lawyers?
  - fnimick 3y ago
    And enough usage in the general public to have "politician X will ban uber" be a negative campaign position. Same reason AirBnB works despite many laws to the contrary. If you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law, out of a desire to keep using the product, you win. It's a race to get too big to be shut down.
    - throwaway237289 3y ago
      There's something hilarious about your framing of "get too big to be shut down". You actually said "if you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law". So someone builds a product that the public likes, something they demand that politicians allow, and somehow this is "too big to be shut down". Do you forget that modern democracies pretend that their authority derives from the will of the people? The law is not sacred. Get off your high horse.
      - manquer 3y ago
        Modern ( and ancient) democracies are not direct democracies. There are many reasons why popularity alone of the voting public does not translate into policy. The dangers of tyranny of the majority is well known, will of the people is a necessary but not sufficient reason. There are also some pre-requisites for a functioning democracy like a well-informed electorate which is questionable today at best.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
magnetowasright 3y ago
Hey, let's be fair; those copyright infringement laws also only protect corporations!
earthwalker99 3y ago
The definition of capitalism is literally a system of economic relations that prioritizes the right to leverage one's existing capital to accumulate more capital, above everything else and indefinitely.
filleduchaos 3y ago
> Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there. Nintendo is being a bully here, but what on earth does a monopoly on the market of your own platform even mean?
- hraedon 3y ago
  This is the theory that people (on HN and elsewhere) have used to argue that Apple's App Store represents a monopoly that should be broken up. It makes no more sense here than it does in that context.
  - zacmps 3y ago
    It absolutely makes sense viewed through the lens of early 2000s antitrust cases (esp. those against Microsoft). The landscape has obviously changed since, but not for any good reason in my opinion.
- devit 3y ago
  - Nintendo Switch hardware only runs Nintendo Switch OS -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OSes - Nintendo Switch OS only runs on Nintendo Switch hardware -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OS hardware - Nintendo Switch hardware and OS only run officially licensed Nintendo game -> Nintendo monopoly on games for Nintendo Switch and OS games - Nintendo Switch games only run on Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo monopoly on hardware that runs Switch games (Apple and iPhone are in the same situation) Compare to the situation with Windows: - x86 hardware can run any OS, including Linux and Windows -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although Windows and Microsoft keys are often pre-installed - Windows can run on any x86 hardware (and ARM I think?) -> no Microsoft monopoly, although they don't release source to port to other CPU architectures - Windows can run any software from anyone at no charge -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although they can favor their own software - Windows software can run on any OS, such as Windows or Linux with Wine -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although one can argue that having an OS API without an open-source implementation induces lock-in and creates a partial monopoly
datbn 3y ago
This is not a case of a company that does something massively useful but then does a (relatively to the size of the company) small illegal thing on the side. The whole raison d'etre of Tropic Haze LLC is to, allegedly, break the law.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Are you saying console emulation is only used for breaking the law?
  - datbn 3y ago
    The DMCA says it's illegal to bypass DRM schemes based on encryption. Yuzu needs to do that to function. Therefore, Yuzu breaks the DMCA. But, we'll see what the judge says.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Meanwhile, fair use is also a thing. I'm not real clear on where that illegality of bypassing DRM schemes fits in with that, and also how it fits in with other laws and exceptions. So yeah, it'll be interesting to see what the judge says. :)
bossyTeacher 3y ago
Welcome to the real world. Either you are powerful enough to change the law or you have to follow whatever law exists
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Monopoly is literally the point of copyright. That's its explicit purpose. Their entire case rests on the presumption that the DMCA protects Nintendo's monopoly over not only distribution, but playback of its console game software.

ambigious7777 3y ago

Man, the US copyright system is broken :^(

extheat 3y ago

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. Unless the lawsuit is in bad faith and meritless (only a court can make that determination), there is no argument to be had about "lawfare". The only difference here and in other companies is that Nintendo actually follows through with their legal threats instead of just filing complaints they don't intend to take to court.

acyou 3y ago
If we don't like companies abusing their power, we can complain and decide not to buy the products of companies doing that sort of thing, and support their competitors. There's only so far courts takes you, for a consumer company the real trial is most definitely in the public court of opinion.
- jojobas 3y ago
  I can't see their user base (or should I say fans?) caring about some cheap-ass emulator crowd. Nintendo's cash cow is people who buy consoles, games and accessories for thousands bucks, not tinkerers. More general public (i.e. moms looking for kids' presents) wouldn't give to shits about any legal buggery either.
rymiel 3y ago
The determination by the "court" doesn't really matter here. The party with the bigger wallet wins, "bad faith" doesn't mean anything.

justinclift 3y ago

Yeah, it's a pretty stark illustration of "we have enough money to fuck you up, and are very willing to do so". "Might makes right" in action. Your monopoly point is an interesting one. Wonder if there's an actual legal case there, as Nintendo have done a lot of this bullying over the years.

mattmaroon 3y ago
No, there isn’t. Companies choose to put games on Nintendo, many games are available on multiple consoles including Nintendo, and depending on the generation Nintendo is not even always the biggest player. There’s no illegal monopoly. One is certainly allowed to have a monopoly over their own products, that’s what trademarks and patents are for. It’s hard to argue a game developer is forced to play ball with Nintendo.
- roughly 3y ago
  Why does this logic fall down for Apple? Is it size? Is the argument different if it were Microsoft doing similar with XBox?
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Well, Apple is part of a duopoly. Nintendo is not. It’s kind of silly to call somebody a monopolist when they only have a small percentage of market share. In fact, they aren’t even in the top three video game companies, and their hardware is just a reason to sell software. 85% of the revenue comes from first party games. Their revenue is less than 10% of the entire gaming industry. For some reason, people insist on thinking of them as a hardware company that also makes games, when the reality has been the reverse for decades. There are a whole lot of ways to distribute a video game. Three major consoles. Computers. Things like the steam deck. Smart phones. You could ignore any one or two of them, and still have a great business. In fact, lots of companies do. A whole lot of people have access to more than one of these platforms. You could ignore anyone or two of these platforms, and still sell your product to most of the people in the market. It is a highly competitive environment. If you don’t like Nintendo’s policies, just sell on Xbox and PlayStation and steam. People do this. If an environment is competitive, then by definition, nobody has a monopoly or an unfair advantage. The Earth has 8 billion people, most of whom have a smart phone, all of which are using one of two operating systems. Not many people have more than one. If Apple says your app cannot be in their App Store, half of humanity, cannot use your app. It is a much different scenario.

Kranar 3y ago

There were tons and TONS of ride sharing apps that got shut down as Uber was becoming popular due to regulatory violations: Sidecar, Juno, Poparide, Heetch, Taxify, and there are probably hundreds that got shut down in local markets. Plenty of companies get shut down for regulatory violations, or employee mistreatment. Pointing at some extreme outliers is nothing more than a form of selection bias.

fcsp 3y ago
Why didn't Uber though? Is it just enough money to buy the right lobbyists and lawyers?
- fnimick 3y ago
  And enough usage in the general public to have "politician X will ban uber" be a negative campaign position. Same reason AirBnB works despite many laws to the contrary. If you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law, out of a desire to keep using the product, you win. It's a race to get too big to be shut down.
  - throwaway237289 3y ago
    There's something hilarious about your framing of "get too big to be shut down". You actually said "if you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law". So someone builds a product that the public likes, something they demand that politicians allow, and somehow this is "too big to be shut down". Do you forget that modern democracies pretend that their authority derives from the will of the people? The law is not sacred. Get off your high horse.
    - manquer 3y ago
      Modern ( and ancient) democracies are not direct democracies. There are many reasons why popularity alone of the voting public does not translate into policy. The dangers of tyranny of the majority is well known, will of the people is a necessary but not sufficient reason. There are also some pre-requisites for a functioning democracy like a well-informed electorate which is questionable today at best.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

magnetowasright 3y ago

Hey, let's be fair; those copyright infringement laws also only protect corporations!

earthwalker99 3y ago

The definition of capitalism is literally a system of economic relations that prioritizes the right to leverage one's existing capital to accumulate more capital, above everything else and indefinitely.

filleduchaos 3y ago

> Also it seems to me that Nintendo might themselves violate antitrust laws by using their monopoly power on market of Nintendo-compatible games, and not allowing enough competition there. Nintendo is being a bully here, but what on earth does a monopoly on the market of your own platform even mean?

hraedon 3y ago
This is the theory that people (on HN and elsewhere) have used to argue that Apple's App Store represents a monopoly that should be broken up. It makes no more sense here than it does in that context.
- zacmps 3y ago
  It absolutely makes sense viewed through the lens of early 2000s antitrust cases (esp. those against Microsoft). The landscape has obviously changed since, but not for any good reason in my opinion.
devit 3y ago
- Nintendo Switch hardware only runs Nintendo Switch OS -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OSes - Nintendo Switch OS only runs on Nintendo Switch hardware -> Nintendo monopoly on Switch OS hardware - Nintendo Switch hardware and OS only run officially licensed Nintendo game -> Nintendo monopoly on games for Nintendo Switch and OS games - Nintendo Switch games only run on Nintendo Switch -> Nintendo monopoly on hardware that runs Switch games (Apple and iPhone are in the same situation) Compare to the situation with Windows: - x86 hardware can run any OS, including Linux and Windows -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although Windows and Microsoft keys are often pre-installed - Windows can run on any x86 hardware (and ARM I think?) -> no Microsoft monopoly, although they don't release source to port to other CPU architectures - Windows can run any software from anyone at no charge -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although they can favor their own software - Windows software can run on any OS, such as Windows or Linux with Wine -> mostly no Microsoft monopoly, although one can argue that having an OS API without an open-source implementation induces lock-in and creates a partial monopoly

datbn 3y ago

This is not a case of a company that does something massively useful but then does a (relatively to the size of the company) small illegal thing on the side. The whole raison d'etre of Tropic Haze LLC is to, allegedly, break the law.

justinclift 3y ago
Are you saying console emulation is only used for breaking the law?
- datbn 3y ago
  The DMCA says it's illegal to bypass DRM schemes based on encryption. Yuzu needs to do that to function. Therefore, Yuzu breaks the DMCA. But, we'll see what the judge says.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Meanwhile, fair use is also a thing. I'm not real clear on where that illegality of bypassing DRM schemes fits in with that, and also how it fits in with other laws and exceptions. So yeah, it'll be interesting to see what the judge says. :)

bossyTeacher 3y ago

Welcome to the real world. Either you are powerful enough to change the law or you have to follow whatever law exists

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Monopoly is literally the point of copyright. That's its explicit purpose. Their entire case rests on the presumption that the DMCA protects Nintendo's monopoly over not only distribution, but playback of its console game software.