"NEW: Nintendo is suing the creators of popular Switch emulator Yuzu, saying their tech illegally circumvents Nintendo's software encryption and facilitates piracy. Seeks damages for alleged violations and a shutdown of the emulator.

Notes 1 million copies of Tears of the Kingdom downloaded prior to game's release; says Yuzu's Patreon support doubled during that time. Basically arguing that that is proof that Yuzu's business model helps piracy flourish."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Booo! Nintendo sucks! This was decided 30 years ago. Emulation is not illegal.

[–] s0ckpuppet@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago

Yeah and none of the switch emulator stuff I've seen comes bundled with the firmware. You have to track that down separately or dump your own from your Switch.

This sure looks like like a slapp suit to me.

[+] echo64@lemmy.world -8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's good we are all clear, nintendo isn't arguing that. They are arguing a case about copyright infringement and being in violation of the dmca

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

It is not illegal to make copies of games you own and play them on an emulator. That is what was decided by the courts. Nintendo is trying to make that illegal.

They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be), that’s the same as Yuzu circumventing their encryption.

That’s basically like saying VLC should be illegal because it has the capability of copying a DVD.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be), that’s the same as Yuzu circumventing their encryption.

Yes, yes they are. That's how the DMCA works. It's mental.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That’s not how the DMCA works, or tons of other software would be illegal. It’s illegal to circumvent copy protection under the DMCA (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), but it’s not illegal to make something that can be used to circumvent copy protection.

In fact, there are exemptions to that provision and one of them states that circumventing copy protection in order to play a video game using assistive technologies is legal.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It’s illegal to circumvent copy protection under the DMCA (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), but it’s not illegal to make something that can be used to circumvent copy protection.

It is explicitly illegal to produce any thing whose purpose it is to circumvent DRM:

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

I'm telling you, that law is mental.

In fact, there are exemptions to that provision and one of them states that circumventing copy protection in order to play a video game using assistive technologies is legal.

Could you point that specific exception in the law? I can't find it.

Link for convenience: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The exceptions are handled by the Library of Congress and go through a renewal process every three years. Here’s the one from 2021:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-10-28/pdf/2021-23311.pdf

The accessibility use exception is on the last page, middle of the page, paragraph labeled 21.

It’s illegal to make something that’s sole purpose is to circumvent copyright. Yuzu does not have that sole purpose, and doesn’t include the code necessary (prod.keys) to even accomplish it.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The actual text for reference:

Video games in the form of computer programs, embodied in lawfully acquired physical or downloaded formats, and operated on a general-purpose computer, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the purpose of allowing an individual with a physical disability to use software or hardware input methods other than a standard keyboard or mouse.

That explicitly only applies to physically disabled people. Yuzu is not specifically targetted at providing a different input method (at all) and certainly not solely for the physically disabled.

That exception is not relevant to this case.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I didn’t say it was. I used it as an example of when circumventing copy protection is allowed under the DMCA.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 months ago

I love YUZU and it’s wonderful…

…but if they didn’t have a Patreon they’d have a better stance

[–] echo64@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They’re using the DMCA to say that because Yuzu lets someone circumvent their encryption (which is illegal, but shouldn’t be),

Yes. That's what I'm saying. That's what I said.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yuzu is not infringing on their copyright, some of the users are. Sue the users.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

unfortunately, that isn't how the DMCA works

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Can you point me to the provision you’re talking about?

[–] echo64@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, so distributing the code necessary to perform the decryption is illegal. That’s why you have to hack an actual switch to get the code necessary to perform the decryption (prod.keys). All Yuzu is doing is running that code through an AES library to get the game and emulating a Switch to play it. You can’t make AES libraries illegal just because they can be used to decrypt copy protection.

It’s the same with DVD decryption. VLC is not illegal because it doesn’t include the codes used to decrypt DVDs. Once you have those codes, VLC can copy a DVD for you.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, it's broader than that. Providing a mechanism is enough. Yes, this is functionally making maths illegal, and yes, this is a complaint we've had with the dmca for 20 years.

Providing the keys is against dmca, as is Providing the tooling that specifically breaks the rights management. This is just the shitty way Americans made the copyright system.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I disagree that the DMCA makes AES libraries illegal.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, well, that's your opinion based on nothing, so it doesn't mean much.

At the very least, read the prior art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Corley?wprov=sfla1

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know if the two cases are equivalent, DeCSS included all code necessary to decrypt a copy protected DVD.

Yuzu does not include the necessary code to decrypt a Switch game. Users have to either “hack” their own Switch, or pirate the codes. What the users are doing is the illegal part here.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're conflating the idea of code and keys. The keys are explicitly illegal as they directly fall under nintendo copyright.

The code is also falling under breach of dmca, as its entire use and focus is to break drm. This is the sticking point here.

Again, to labor the point, it's nothing about the keys, we don't need to talk about the keys.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m using code in the sense of the word pass codes. Like, encryption codes. The codes you input to an encryption algorithm, along with the cyphertext, to get the plaintext.

But yes, Nintendo and you are saying that distributing Yuzu is illegal because it can only be used to violate the DMCA.

I disagree.

It can also be used in compliance with the DMCA, and nothing it includes are the intellectual property of Nintendo. There are exceptions to the rule about circumventing copy protection, and as long as you use Yuzu with an intent (such as security research) that falls in one of these exceptions, you can use Yuzu legally.

As long as Yuzu is never distributed by its authors with the encryption codes, it shouldn’t be illegal, even according to the DMCA. Otherwise, there would be no way to circumvent copy protection for legal purposes with regard to Switch games.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

You can disagree if you like, nintendos lawyers, prior art, and everyone who understands the dmca isn't going to agree with your stance at all.

Your stance is a moral one. The dmca is not moral. It exists to limit your freedoms in favor of companies' profits. Enjoy your blinkered outlook.

Also, never use the word code like that, it's incorrect and everyone will misunderstand you. It's wrong. Use encryption key.