this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
646 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59323 readers
4666 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This also includes ceasing development and destroying their copies of the code.

The GitHub repo page for Yuzu now returns a 404, as well. In addition, the repo for the Citra 3DS emulator was also taken down.

As of at least 23:30 UTC, Yuzu's website and Citra's website have been replaced with a statement about their discontinuation.


Other sources found by @Daughter3546@lemmy.world:


There is also an active Reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1b6gtb5/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] null@slrpnk.net 32 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Is it piracy to play my legally purchased and backed up games on an emulator?

Edit: a lot of people responding to this are accidentally answering the question above. Yes, those are the things they would have fought if they had the money to go up against Nintendo.

To those saying that it is indeed piracy -- pretty sure the law has disagreed up to this point. Note that Nintendo didn't win this suit, Yuzu settled. No legal precedent set (yet).

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

You likely don't have any liability but thats why Nintendo sued them and not you

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you circumvent the copyright protection systems to do so, then under American law yes. If you don't like this, you have to campaign for change.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Do you believe there is a chance of success for campaigning for change?

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Every few years, more things are added as exceptions to the DMCAs circumvention clause. There's a whole host of exceptions, and they are all exceptions in favor of people over companies. Those exceptions came about because people who care fought for them.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Do you have any specific examples and how long it took, or how much it cost? It seems farfetched to think it is feasible to counter the "anti circumvention technology" aspect of the DMCA.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Wikipedia has an entire list of anti-circumvention exceptions under the page for the DMCA. I have no idea how those exceptions came to be or how much money and time was involved to make it happen, but it does seem to be changing in our benefit over time.

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

How is it far fetched when there's a literal bunch of examples you can go find right now? You're basing your estimation on zero evidence and doomerism.

Try, apply yourself. Don't just assume.

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

If I'm as successful changing law as I am changing minds on the internet then doomerism is an understatement.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Does it matter? I suspect that if that's what you did, you were one of very few people doing so, and the law doesn't require the absence of any possible legitimate use. In this case, something is illegal if it

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

has only limited commercially significant purpose or use

[–] null@slrpnk.net 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You asked if there was a significant use-case. That's what it is, and why emulators have remained legal up to this point.

How many people take advantage of that use-case over piracy is a different point.

Also the law has not decided anything here, yet. As far as the law is concerned, emulators are still legal.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's a use case, but I would argue that it's not a significant use case.

Emulators are still legal in theory, but I doubt that it is in practice possible to make an emulator for a modern video game system without violating some other part of the law.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 6 points 8 months ago

It's a use case, but I would argue that it's not a significant use case.

And that's the answer to your question about what Yuzu would have fought if they had the money to take on Nintendo.

Emulators are still legal in theory, but I doubt that it is in practice possible to make an emulator for a modern video game system without violating some other part of the law.

That's exactly what hasn't been determined, since Yuzu settled and it didn't go to court.