4 ms·

> Yuzu can be blamed for TotK piracy But they can be legally blamed for not taking any steps to prevent it. Which means there are two avenues for Nintendo to

> Yuzu can be blamed for TotK piracy But they can be legally blamed for not taking any steps to prevent it. Which means there are two avenues for Nintendo to attack this situation.

deelowe 3y ago
Hrmm. Can you explain further? What sort of inaction would make them legally liable?
- threeseed 3y ago
  If you are aware of illegal activity being committed, have preventative measures available to you and choose not to use them then you're complicit. Similar to the approach that have been used in various jurisdictions against torrent sites.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    You realize most of grew up in the age of VHS and mp3 players right?
  - boolemancer 3y ago
    What preventative measures could they have used?
  - deelowe 3y ago
    Yuzu did not allow totk to be ran until after the release date. Not sure what else they could have done.
skeaker 3y ago
Seems a bit silly. Could you sue Microsoft because they did nothing to prevent death threats from being written in Word or sent over Outlook?
- balls187 3y ago
  That’s an argument to make. Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of manslaughter for doing nothing to prevent her son from shooting up his school. That was criminal court with a much higher standard than a civil case. Nintendo has consistently been one of the strongest protectors of their IP, and a defense that says “We tell users not to commit piracy” is about as effective as a sex workers disclaimer that “money is exchanged for time.”
  - skeaker 3y ago
    That case is in regards to a guardian figure who has some level of legal responsibility for the children in their care. In that case it makes sense to hold someone accountable for the actions of someone else because the person in question agreed to that when they became a guardian. Software developers should not be held liable for what their users do with the software unless the software itself does something illegal (such as malware that gains unauthorized access to secure systems). If developers were responsible for their users then you would have all kinds of bizarre lawsuits. You would be able to sue Microsoft for things written by users in Word. It wouldn't be a stretch to sue Linux contributers because someone used the OS to perform a DOS attack or to host a scam site.
    - balls187 3y ago
      I haven't looked at Nintendo's materials, but I would think they were able to find enough evidence to get them past any preliminary dismissal motions, and get to discovery in which case Nintendo would likely get access to all communications and electronic files (read: source code). I think Nintendo would be banking that the Yuzu team likely had lax (if at anything) policies and processes for compliance to their public stance on piracy.
      - bkallus 3y ago
        Yuzu is free software, so its source code is already available: https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu
supernikio2 3y ago
In that case, Linux creators would be liable for not taking any steps within the Linux kernel preventing you from pirating a game on the platform.
- threeseed 3y ago
  No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. The whole point of emulation is that you want to play content for which the original hardware no longer exists. And so there is no harm being done to anyone. This situation is obviously quite different because Nintendo is being harmed.
  - boolemancer 3y ago
    > No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. It's not piracy to play a game that you've backed up on different hardware than the original developers intended.
    - deelowe 3y ago
      My understanding is that it actually is (or at least probably is) illegal to create and play your own backups...
      - boolemancer 3y ago
        Perhaps that's true, but not because it would be piracy. Backing up media for personal has a pretty strong fair use claim, so I don't think it should be considered copyright infringement. But there is also the DMCA, and the anti-circumvention provision, which can be attributed a lot more to the user backing up their game than it can be to the developers of the emulator. But that wouldn't be the same thing as copyright infringement. That said, if the"interoperability exception" applies to anything at all, I feel like it should apply here. You are circumventing copy protection mechanisms for the explicit purpose of interoperability with other software. On moral grounds, I also have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with someone circumventing copy protection mechanisms to make a copy of a thing they bought to use for personal use. The fact that that could be potentially illegal at all is disgusting.
crtasm 3y ago
What steps could they take? The emulator can't tell if the game dump I load into it is from my own cartridge or obtained elsewhere.

> Yuzu can be blamed for TotK piracy But they can be legally blamed for not taking any steps to prevent it. Which means there are two avenues for Nintendo to attack this situation.

deelowe 3y ago

Hrmm. Can you explain further? What sort of inaction would make them legally liable?

threeseed 3y ago
If you are aware of illegal activity being committed, have preventative measures available to you and choose not to use them then you're complicit. Similar to the approach that have been used in various jurisdictions against torrent sites.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  You realize most of grew up in the age of VHS and mp3 players right?
- boolemancer 3y ago
  What preventative measures could they have used?
- deelowe 3y ago
  Yuzu did not allow totk to be ran until after the release date. Not sure what else they could have done.

skeaker 3y ago

Seems a bit silly. Could you sue Microsoft because they did nothing to prevent death threats from being written in Word or sent over Outlook?

balls187 3y ago
That’s an argument to make. Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of manslaughter for doing nothing to prevent her son from shooting up his school. That was criminal court with a much higher standard than a civil case. Nintendo has consistently been one of the strongest protectors of their IP, and a defense that says “We tell users not to commit piracy” is about as effective as a sex workers disclaimer that “money is exchanged for time.”
- skeaker 3y ago
  That case is in regards to a guardian figure who has some level of legal responsibility for the children in their care. In that case it makes sense to hold someone accountable for the actions of someone else because the person in question agreed to that when they became a guardian. Software developers should not be held liable for what their users do with the software unless the software itself does something illegal (such as malware that gains unauthorized access to secure systems). If developers were responsible for their users then you would have all kinds of bizarre lawsuits. You would be able to sue Microsoft for things written by users in Word. It wouldn't be a stretch to sue Linux contributers because someone used the OS to perform a DOS attack or to host a scam site.
  - balls187 3y ago
    I haven't looked at Nintendo's materials, but I would think they were able to find enough evidence to get them past any preliminary dismissal motions, and get to discovery in which case Nintendo would likely get access to all communications and electronic files (read: source code). I think Nintendo would be banking that the Yuzu team likely had lax (if at anything) policies and processes for compliance to their public stance on piracy.
    - bkallus 3y ago
      Yuzu is free software, so its source code is already available: https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu

supernikio2 3y ago

In that case, Linux creators would be liable for not taking any steps within the Linux kernel preventing you from pirating a game on the platform.

threeseed 3y ago
No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. The whole point of emulation is that you want to play content for which the original hardware no longer exists. And so there is no harm being done to anyone. This situation is obviously quite different because Nintendo is being harmed.
- boolemancer 3y ago
  > No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is. It's not piracy to play a game that you've backed up on different hardware than the original developers intended.
  - deelowe 3y ago
    My understanding is that it actually is (or at least probably is) illegal to create and play your own backups...
    - boolemancer 3y ago
      Perhaps that's true, but not because it would be piracy. Backing up media for personal has a pretty strong fair use claim, so I don't think it should be considered copyright infringement. But there is also the DMCA, and the anti-circumvention provision, which can be attributed a lot more to the user backing up their game than it can be to the developers of the emulator. But that wouldn't be the same thing as copyright infringement. That said, if the"interoperability exception" applies to anything at all, I feel like it should apply here. You are circumventing copy protection mechanisms for the explicit purpose of interoperability with other software. On moral grounds, I also have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with someone circumventing copy protection mechanisms to make a copy of a thing they bought to use for personal use. The fact that that could be potentially illegal at all is disgusting.

crtasm 3y ago

What steps could they take? The emulator can't tell if the game dump I load into it is from my own cartridge or obtained elsewhere.