745
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
745 points (98.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
391 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The precedent that almost everyone cites (because it is some of the only) is Sony vs Bleem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit
Initial release was in 1999 and lawsuits were around the same time. PS2 launched in 2000. So while the bleem marketing was a complete mess, the emulator existing while a console was still "alive" does not matter in the slightest.
The main point of that ruling was that they weren't using proprietary code. Yuzu almost certainly did after the TOTK leak, unless they magically just happened to improve that much directly afterwards.
I don't like it, but there's a pretty big chance that Yuzu loses this one.
That's not what using proprietary code means in this case.
Besides, it's possible they "legitimately" bought a copy of the game from a store that accidentally broke the embargo date. You can't legally blame customers for that.