Repository with text of DMCA takedown notices as received. GitHub does not endorse or adopt any assertion contained in the following notices. Users identified in the notices are presumed innocent u...
But did yuzu actually break DRM? I thought that if I dumped my own game and keys with a modded (1st gen) switch and feed all of that into yuzu, nothing illegal would be going on.
I don’t believe Yuzu went to court, but that was the accusation Nintendo was suing them over. Ryujinx wasn’t sued, so Nintendo either didn’t believe they had done the same, or didn’t care. We didn’t get to have a discovery process for the case to find out for sure, so we don’t know.
iirc it was yuzu who linked tools to do it, but the application itself didnt do it. Yuzus main problem was often linking to resources and advertising stuff, and partially locking it behind a paywall.
They allegedly also advertised that newegames, like TotK was running better on the EA builds and there’s the suspicion that the yuzu team also distributed the keys via torrents. All of these are just allegations, though.
The paywall as far as I know isn’t that much of problem. Cemu has/had a paywall for years. Several other, though less successful, emulators have had paywalled content/early access as well. The BLEEM emulator that was brought to court was a paid commercial product. So that currently is perfectly legal within the jurisdiction of those cases. Nintendo’s case against Yuzu was about piracy/DRM circumvention. That wasn’t brought to court, so we don’t know the outcome however.
No, yuzu’s main problem was being a for-profit company. That seemed to be central to Nintendo’s case against them. The company behind yuzu was making millions.
It’s also possible that they wouldn’t win against Ryujinx. There’s evidence of Yuzu devs sharing roms with each other to test out games, so it’s possible that they settled to avoid discovery.
This is probably in a legal grey area in the US. The Yuzu case was settled out of court because Nintendo had dirt on the team behind it, so it’s unclear whether a judge would rule that this kind of circumvention is legal.
But did yuzu actually break DRM? I thought that if I dumped my own game and keys with a modded (1st gen) switch and feed all of that into yuzu, nothing illegal would be going on.
I don’t believe Yuzu went to court, but that was the accusation Nintendo was suing them over. Ryujinx wasn’t sued, so Nintendo either didn’t believe they had done the same, or didn’t care. We didn’t get to have a discovery process for the case to find out for sure, so we don’t know.
iirc it was yuzu who linked tools to do it, but the application itself didnt do it. Yuzus main problem was often linking to resources and advertising stuff, and partially locking it behind a paywall.
They allegedly also advertised that newegames, like TotK was running better on the EA builds and there’s the suspicion that the yuzu team also distributed the keys via torrents. All of these are just allegations, though.
The paywall as far as I know isn’t that much of problem. Cemu has/had a paywall for years. Several other, though less successful, emulators have had paywalled content/early access as well. The BLEEM emulator that was brought to court was a paid commercial product. So that currently is perfectly legal within the jurisdiction of those cases. Nintendo’s case against Yuzu was about piracy/DRM circumvention. That wasn’t brought to court, so we don’t know the outcome however.
No, yuzu’s main problem was being a for-profit company. That seemed to be central to Nintendo’s case against them. The company behind yuzu was making millions.
Paid emulators have existed for ages and have won in US courts before.
Ryujinx is nowhere near as popular as Yuzu, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
It’s also possible that they wouldn’t win against Ryujinx. There’s evidence of Yuzu devs sharing roms with each other to test out games, so it’s possible that they settled to avoid discovery.
This is probably in a legal grey area in the US. The Yuzu case was settled out of court because Nintendo had dirt on the team behind it, so it’s unclear whether a judge would rule that this kind of circumvention is legal.