-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Stevonidas
Member
Bank on it.
Topher
Gold Member
Hmmm, I just watched the section that is labeled as discussing Bleem, but he doesn't seem to mention Bleem at all. He just answers a few questions from one guy. I'll have to dig in more later.
Astray
Gold Member
He mentions it when it's pertinent throughout the stream.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Yeah, I figured. Just weird that he has a section of the video labeled with”bleem” in it but he doesn’t speak about it there.
YeulEmeralda
Member
I'm not sure if it works that way with Nintendo they keep selling 20 year old games.
On that note I wonder how backwards compatibility will impact the scene? There's more financial incentive for companies to go after emulators now.
Astray
Gold Member
Basically all consoles from last gen on are gonna be considered current, at the very least.
Nintendo even said in its filing that it considers its entire library an asset for its future operations (and honestly I don't blame them, it's their IP after all).
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
This makes sense since the higher the compatibility the less reason there is to pledge for the early access versions, or to provide incentive towards increased compatibility. The last time I pledged was around the release of ToTK. I just repledged as a sign of solidarity with the emulation community.Has been in a downwards trend for a few months now.
If anything, it seems they got a small spike since around the time the lawsuit news appeared.
Either due to all the attention, or from people who feel that nintendo should get fucked.
My assumption is that this aggression from Nintendo is coming in advance of BC that doesn't enhance games, so they will sell "remastered" versions that running at higher res and frame rate. Yuzu already provides that on even meager hardware, so Nintendo is looking to nuke it so they can secure the double-dip.
Last edited:
John Wick
Member
How are the damages calculable and traceable to Yuzu? Which roms are they hosting?
Also where's your proof that only 1% of users are legitimately playing bought games?.
Also how is the emulator letting people steal games?
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Secondary liability means that they're essentially facilitating a copyright violation, even if they aren't directly providing roms or something like that. The emulator is letting people steal games by giving them an easy way to run pirated software. I don't have proof that 1% of users are playing legitimately purchased games, but I think it's common sense that most people are using Yuzu to do that. Either way, that is irrelevant as far as whether or not they're liable in this case - that's just color commentary on my part.
CS Lurker
Member
I would say 0.001%, and I think I'm still being generous with such percentage.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Is this a serious question?
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Probably. I'm sure even the 7 people who are using it legitimately realize that they're in the extreme minority.
NinjaBoiX
Member
100%
“How does it help facilitate piracy? It’s about game preservation.”
Maybe to a small bunch of nerds of a forum, but most people use it to steal software.
Don’t try and pretend you’re that naive.
nkarafo
Member
I don't know of any emulator that one can use to steal software. It's also impossible to do this with Yuzu. It can't dump or hack any software. You can only use Yuzu to play the stolen software if you want. Just like every other emulator in existence.
But you know what else can play stolen software? Anything. A chipped/hacked console. Windows can run any cracked PC game without the need of Steam or any other platform. Compatibility layers and virtual machines.
Maybe instead of banning all these, we could ban sites that host the stolen software or go after the individuals who dump and upload them?
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
The distinction Nintendo is making (which is legally the correct one to make if you want to sue someone for this) is that Yuzu uses the encryption keys to decrypt the software, which is a violation of the DMCA provision that says that you can't break the copyright protection on software. If they didn't do that, Nintendo's legal theory would have to change and their case arguably wouldn't be as strong.
nkarafo
Member
That's a different argument though. I was answering to the generic "stolen software" argument above.
John Wick
Member
How does the emulator steal software?
So what your saying is you install the emulator and it steals the games and runs the games automatically for you eh? If that's the case then Nintendo has every right to go after them. If it doesn't and doesn't provide the links or facilities for this alleged theft you need to stop with your nonsense.
John Wick
Member
Has anyone took Mame to court yet???
Topher
Gold Member
You don't use Yuzu to "steal software". The software is obtained through other means. Either 1) ripping the software from cartridges on your own device or 2) downloading from the internet. Neither of these functions are done in Yuzu.
Guilty_AI
Member
You know its easier and cheaper to just mod a switch and play the pirated games there right? No Yuzu is needed in this process. Even if all switch emulators got nuked from the face of the earth tomorrow, Switch piracy would carry on strong as ever.
Kadve
Member
Except by that logic pretty much every gun store owner is a murderer.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
No one can steal software through an emulator.
Topher
Gold Member
The decryption being a violation of DMCA is the part I'm fuzzy on as I'm not sure how these keys are being used. My uncertainty stems from whether or not simply using keys to gain access is a violation. The DMCA says it is illegal to "circumvent" encryption. Keys are used for validation, not circumvention, as I understand it. So my question becomes is using keys as they were designed in conjunction with the encryption in place actually "circumventing" that encryption. In other words, if Yuzu were "breaking" or "circumventing" encryption then they wouldn't need the keys at all.
That's an interesting point. I googled it and secondary liability requires "material contributions" to the illegal act. So Nintendo is going to have to prove that the Yuzu dev have materially contributed to the act itself.
Shadowstar39
Member
This right here, and in turn make it harder for us folks just trying to play older games that these companies no longer sell. If they would release all the old nes/snes/ps1/gc games digitally with their own emulator software I and many others would happily buy them, shit they could do bundles with 50 games at a time or collections, like how sega did the ultimate genesis collection, complete with its own ui and emulator.
Its instant money for them, but they don't do this.
So old games are only accessible one of two ways.
1. Buy insanely inflated and expensive old carts/cds and consoles that may be on their last leg. And play each game that way. Will cost you 10000s to get all you want to play.
2. Download an emulator and some roms. Play instantly after minor setup and not pay a dime.
- you aren't stopping #2.
They could at least grab some of the pie by releasing emulators for their old games. Don't know why they don't outside of 3rd parties blocking or companies who are no longer around holding things up (some companies games are lost to time, Acclaim, njn, sierra, tengen, working designs, origin systems, 989 studios, cavedog, Midway, etc.... the list is triple digits long. )
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Well, I guess it's good that murder and copyright aren't the same thing, then.
Edit: More seriously, you might be familiar with someone being an accessory to a crime? Aiding and abetting? Same general principle. The difference between those and the gun shop owner is how directly related the individual is to the act committed.
Last edited:
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I'm not familiar with exactly what Yuzu does, but the general rule is that if a company puts a measure in place to protect their software, any technological measure that allows them to access that protected software is illegal. It doesn't matter if they're using the keys to validate the game or if they reverse engineer the code to remove the encryption altogether - in either case, they're facilitating access to the protected work, and both approaches would be considered illegal.
Topher
Gold Member
Well....that would have been something the judge would have ruled on, but since yuzu folded we won't know for sure. I think there are a lot of gray areas here.
U n i o n 0015
Member
There's been a long-standing legal battle against John Deere for essentially DRM'ing their equipment. AFAIK, it's helped to pass a few "right to repair" laws across the US. Most consumer laws have stated that if you bought it, you have the right to modify it in any way you please...even if you're cracking the encryption the product came with. But of course, very few individuals have the resources to challenge companies in court over this concept.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Yeah, the DMCA is, frankly, a poorly-written document that didn't envisage the modern digital world. Which... it was written in 1998, so it's understandable. It's one of those tricky areas that clearly needs to be reformulated, but the people who advance these types of legislation aren't nearly savvy enough to grapple with these issues. What makes it particularly dumb is that, in normal copyright law, you have things like "fair use" that add a level of reasonableness to copyright law. However, in situations where the DMCA applies, none of those niceties like fair use apply anymore - the DMCA has its own, much narrower set of rules. I think it's bullshit.
In any case, there is a lot of gray area and there have rightfully been a lot of challenges over the years as to how far the DMCA extends.
NinjaBoiX
Member
And you steal the software because emulators like Yuzu exist.
It’s akin to running a website that knowingly allows the sale of fake goods, but then claiming innocence because you didn’t actually fake the goods yourself.
It’s playground logic.
Last edited:
phant0m
Member
Also knowledge of intent, which is why pretty much EVERY public forum about emulation bans discussion of piracy or where to get pirated games.
A gun store owner that sells a weapon to someone that says “I need to kill my wife” is legally liable.
An owner that sells to someone who makes no comment on intent is not (provided they followed all their other state laws about firearm sales).
Topher
Gold Member
That logic doesn't even apply here. Yuzu has nothing to do with how you get the "goods". You don't need Yuzu to play pirated games. People can play the games on their jailbroken Switch.
If folks were downloading the games from Yuzu then Yuzu would have been shut down ages ago.
Last edited:
Krathoon
Member
The fact remains. Nintendo turns off the network service on all it's old consoles. So, if you forgot to download all your games, you don't have access to them anymore.
Then the physical copies start becoming collector's items and get expensive.
So, they are just asking to get pirated.
Then the physical copies start becoming collector's items and get expensive.
So, they are just asking to get pirated.
tkscz
Member
But that being the case, pirating is still illegal and Tropical Haze got caught with a ROM stash. Most likely it was for making sure they got the games up and running on Yuzu, but the clear push towards the day early thing made it obvious game preservation wasn't their goal.