4 ms·
If you read the lawsuit, Nintendo cited the DMCA laws regarding the breaking of "technological protection measures" extensively. The DMCA is broader than just t
by gjsman-1000 3y ago
If you read the lawsuit, Nintendo cited the DMCA laws regarding the breaking of "technological protection measures" extensively. The DMCA is broader than just takedowns.
Even if Yuzu succeeded in overturning the takedown, Nintendo could prevail in the court of law on the merits of the DMCA. Overturning a takedown is easy - just file a counter notice. Expect to be seen in court if you do that, though.
Edit: For the "On the technological protection measures, it hasn't been judged," look at Apple vs Psystar. A case where breaking TPMs came up, which actually was fought to the point of where a SCOTUS appeal was the last step remaining. Psystar was annihilated - and let me tell you, emulating macOS on non-Mac hardware sounds a lot like emulating Video Games on non-Nintendo hardware.
- deaddodo 3y agoPsystar wasn't emulating Mac OS X, they were running native code. They broke it's security measures to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware. These two cases have very little to do with each other outside of the cryptographic portion.
- realusername 3y agoNintendo can say all they want, they aren't judges. On the technological protection measures, it hasn't been judged and it's kind of a gray area since Yuzu didn't came with any in it to my knowledge at least. That's also maybe why the settlement is there. Edit: for your edit, Psystar wasn't emulating anything, they were actively modifying software. That's closer to a software crack on how it works than emulation. Apple vs Corelium is closer to the concept since Corelium was emulating the hardware.