Yuzu agrees to pay Nintendo $2.4 million and will entirely shut down (Citra for 3DS too)

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: tuubiWell that's a stretch.

I don't understand what you mean.

Quoting: tuubiYou might as well compare piracy to car theft. We're talking about crime after all.

That doesn't help me in understanding. I'm really talking about license violations (e.g. using Linux without providing the source code).

I'm saying that downloading and privately playing (not sharing, not selling) a copy of a game from the internet is not the same as doing something completely different that breaks the terms of a license. It's a false equivalence.

Note that I'm not advocating piracy. I'm not partaking in it either. I was simply "thinking aloud" about the ethical implications. And I'm regretting it already. I haven't seen a fresh argument on the subject in years.

Quoting: Phlebiac

Quoting: cozBusinesses have been created around protecting game developers against Switch emulation. You don't pay someone to protect you unless you expect to lose sales, which makes obvious that harm has been done.

Say what now? If you think you will lose sales on other platforms, then you make your game available on those platforms, you don't pay for some protection racket. That sounds pretty Mafia?

Maybe my wording was confusing. The platform is irrelevant. You can lose Switch sales due to piracy of Switch games, but also other platforms.

Making a game available to multiple platforms isn't trivial, though it can be made easier if you build the game for it from the beginning. It's also a business, so if you will invest more money porting than what you'll earn, it's not financially justified.
Then again, you don't have the right to order an author to do something with their work, even if it's beneficial for them or you.

There were products created to provide DRM targeting protection from Switch emulation specifically. They are not leaking games if they don't get paid. Your comment reads as a reply to something different from what I wrote.

Quoting: GuestIdk why emulator devs are dumb enough to do this kinda stuff in the West. Its the same with pirate sites/groups - if you wanna do this do it in a place where US jurisdiction can't reach you. Like Russia, Belarus or China. If Yuzu was in Russia/Belarus/China it would be untouchable.

This! Why not just relaunch Yuzu in one of these countries or some country with same position? How could we just accept this what has happened, Nintendo got richer and eff all game preservation means and good work by Yuzu down the drain.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI would recommend that the next people who take the code and continue developing it under a different name, host it in some place like the EU and have some kind of region lock where they don't allow downloads from places with DMCA-type anti-digital-lock-tampering laws. Of course, since the code is open and all some people will then mirror it in other places and it will become available around the world--but that will not be the core project's fault, as they will be taking due measures to prevent it.

EU is a terrible idea as it is under US jurisdiction being US vassal states. The EU has gone after piracy before (Sweden, Italy, Germany). Russia/Belarus/China are much better about it, especially now

But this isn't about piracy. Oh, sure, they can say they were "enabling" piracy, but the key issue is that they allegedly enabled the piracy by enabling tampering with a "digital lock" (encryption, DRM et cetera). Such tampering is forbidden under the DMCA, and there are similar provisions in other countries. But it's entirely legal in the EU, is if anything a consumer right.

And while the EU is definitely under the US thumb in terms of geopolitics, their regimes in terms of laws around computing and telecommunications are really quite different, whether it's about privacy, competition or "intellectual property", and the EU shows no signs of interest in harmonizing their approach with the US one.

I was under the impression that the EU would bow head to US based, DMCA takedown orders?

Moreover, I am skeptical of the "pro-consumer claims" that people have of the EU. I heard that some crack scene groups got sent to prison in Germany for tampering with Denuvo, if anything thats anticonsumer

No that is not at all how things work. The DMCA is only legal inside the US, the EU have a (in some areas) similar EUCD so if a US firm wants to file a "DMCA" on a EU based entity then they have to actually file it as a EUCD so they have to change their filings to match the laws of the EUCD.

No EU country is under the US jurisdiction and none of the EU states are US vassal states. That e.g the Pirate Bay was sued in civil court in Sweden have zero to do with the US and more to do with the fact that copyright laws exists in most countries on earth and that from long before the US was even a state.

In fact the Pirate Bay got one of the best defence lawyers available especially since the system works so different over here (over here the looser always pays the entire costs for both sides so there exists very few US like cases where the case is drawn out to drain the other sides resources).

If you think that EU is not US vassal states, you should go watch the videos of Professor Mearsheimer where he talks about how US dictates policy for EU. It kind of works like the Mongolian Imperial model, where they would not bother their vassals and gave them a degree of autonomy until they needed something from them. Same thing here. This is why for example, Germany shot its own industry in the foot by boycotting Russian energy or not saying anything when the US blew up Nordstream 2.

https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-asks-eu-for-iptv-torrents-piracy-support-services-crackdown-220408/

Here's an example of the MPA acting in the EU to shut down IPTV services. There are also APAA actions. There is also a DMCA takedown procedure in the EU:
https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/European-DMCA-Takedown-process

So yes, US jurisdiction expands to the EU. How could it not, when the US literally has troops in Europe? You think that the US would let Europe act independently on issues it deems of vital importance (and protecting US business is of vital importance to it)?

If you follow your own link on the DMCA you'll read the exact same thing regarding the EUCD that I wrote in the post that you are now arguing with.

No, US jurisdiction does not apply in the EU (the US having troops in Europe due to NATO have zero to do with legal jurisdiction, this is a huge non sequitur), the US did not blow up Nordstream 2 (all evidence so far points towards Ukraine, Ukraine supporters in eastern Europe or false flag by Russia).

All this in combination with you bringing up Mearsheimer only tells me that you are posting Russian conspiracy theories.

If you read the link I sent it says:

"DMCA.com is qualified to go to work on behalf of copyright and content owners." this means that EU upholds US copyright claims/law.

US having troops in Europe as part of NATO is precisely what I mean lol. The entire point is to both be a "defensive" alliance and act as an implied threat to European countries to stay within the desired boundaries that the US sets. Its very similar to the Warsaw Pact in that regard. In fact the US has an extensive regieme change history in both Europe, amongst allies and abroad as well.

The US did blow up Nordstream 2, its fairly well known by now. See this investigation by pultizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

If you also account for the fact that Sweden did an investigation, said they know who did it but then covered it up further lends credence to Seymour's idea. Ukraine does not have the capability to blow up the pipeline. And it doesn't make sense for Russia to blow up their own pipe/money maker, and Russians are rational actors unlike as is commonly portrayed.

Point is this, EU is not really an independent actor and will do what they are told by the US. We have seen this multiple times, with Huawei bans (although neither UK nor German probes found anything of concern), Russian gas bans and if needed with piracy as well.

Sorry but you are utterly confused (or deliberately obtuse). DMCA.com is a company that specialises in takedowns the world over, that they have named their company DMCA doesn't mean that they use the DMCA outside of the USA, it only means that they have decided to call their company this. Cheesus.

And no the actual evidence from the Swedish Navy points directly to Ukrainians or Russians, Ukrainians due to the people that hired the boat that allegedly conducted the attack and Russia due to them having placed lots of navy ships there inside Swedish waters just before the attack.

The major problem with the USA angle is that the USA had nothing to gain from blowing it up, the USA had already convinced Germany et al to stop using it so Nordstream was defacto a dead project already (thanks to the pipe being not used the explosion wasn't bigger than it was). The only ones having a reason to do it is #1 Ukraine to retaliate against Russia and #2 Russia to cry wolf.

file:///home/andrew/Downloads/kchrist6,+p8blythe7.pdf

So I did some research and while DMCA is a US invention (which you are correct about) EU tends to frequently uphold it.

Lol here's what Sweden said:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/7/sweden-ends-nord-stream-probe-citing-lack-of-jurisdiction

The closed the probe citing an "unknown state actor" that they don't want to name. If it was Russia, they would have "exposed it" and it would have been all over the news. Ukraine also denied doing it (although they don't hesitate to confirm they did something). The boat that was allegedly hired by the Ukrainians was held by the Germans, and the Germans found no evidence that Ukrainians did it lol.

The US has alot to gain from blowing up nordstream 2 - first was that it cuts off Germany entirely off Russian energy, so that they could entertain no thoughts of going back to Russian energy. Next, it guarentees that Germany is hooked on US LNG. Finally, it was a last ditch attempt by the US to influence Russian actions. Also blowing up the Nord Stream 2 is an act of war against both Russia and Germany. This is why Sweden wanted to cover it up.

In contrast, Russia has nothing to gain from "crying wolf" because nobody would believe them anyway and because its their main money maker and they hoped that things would eventually settle down and they could reopen the pipe again in the future. This is an impossibility now. Russia has nothing to gain from blowing up their own pipe, its a nonsensical claim as the one saying they fired at themselves at the Zaporozhiye Power Plant lmao

No the EU cannot uphold the DMCA because it's an American law. How can this be so problematic for you? It's only on the points where the DMCA and the EUCD agrees where things can be upheld so when this is done it's done under the EUCD rules and not the DMCA rules.

Don't know where Al Jazeera got that from, I happen to Swedish and have relatives that work in MUST (our Military Intelligence) and the investigation was not dropped due to some unknown state actor, it was dropped because there was nothing further that could be investigated, the Swedish military jurisdiction only covers Swedish territorial waters. All findings have been forwarded to the German investigation who are the ones that are taking it on since the leads went into their jurisdiction and due to secrecy laws for international co-operations of these matters there is nothing more than any part can disclose.

Again, there was nothing in it for the US to risk this kind of operation. Nordstream was off production and was never to be opened again, nothing in Germany would ever be able to turn in on again. Also why risk war with Russia over something useless as this. No, blaming this on the US is just stupid cheap b-level movie plot. It would also leak (all US operations leak as hell and there haven't been a single whisper).

This is why Russians (and the fact that the area was swarmed by the Russian navy in the days before the attack) are the #1 suspect because they had exactly zero to loose by Nordstream being blown up and all to gain in the cry wolf, and Russians loves to cry wolf (they have done so the entire campaign), Putin might not have gained anything internationally from it, but internally in Russia it is one of the things that further secures his position.

Quoting: Brokatt

Quoting: redneckdrowThe thing is, I don't think Nintendo was going after it as an emulator. Sony v. Bleem (a PSX emulator) set a precedent ~24 years ago. Emulation of older systems is not only permissible, it's vital. Even the IRS uses emulators of 60's-era computers, such as the Martinsburg Monster, that still accept their wildly out-of-date programs written mostly in COBOL.

The way they went after Yuzu was by arguing that it is not just an emulator, that it is a tool used primarily for piracy. Because they're still selling the Switch. Cracking encryption on proprietary hardware that is still on the market is legally dubious at best. I believe Nintendo to be incorrect in assuming that the majority pirated games, but the burden of proof against that would be too great, even in civil court.

Just look at what happened to the guy that cracked the Switch firmware in the first place. Modern Vintage Gamer did a whole video series about why he gives the emulation community a bad name.

Things like this are why I only use emulators for discontinued platforms. In that case, it's much harder for a company to say that it affects their bottom line.

Ripping my own cartridges requires a lot of pain on my part (there are a few different pi-based solutions that lessen that pain today), but it's better than risking a $500,000 dollar fine or five years in prison. Ripping floppies or discs is considerably easier in most cases. I tend to use cdrdao or ddrescue.

Outright piracy of a game still commercially available is theft, no matter how you slice it. Backing up your existing games for a discontinued platform isn't.

I have a couple of 90's-00s games that would be expensive as heck to replace, so I keep the physical copies locked up in a fire-resistant safe and play them via emulation.

If you're interested in Sony v. Bleem, Gaming Historian did a video on the whole debacle. Bleem may have run like a piece of garbage, but every emulation project today owes it a debt.

Manufacturing of Nintendo 3DS stopped over 4 years ago. After last year the Nintendo eShop is completely shut down so even customers who have original hardware cannot purchase digital games. So Nintendo makes no money from neither hardware nor software but they still went after Citra. This is a serious blow to game preservation.

Precisely why I started using Citra last year, from the wording, I didn't realize Citra was also shut down until this morning. That's a low blow, indeed.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: GuestMoreover, I am skeptical of the "pro-consumer claims" that people have of the EU. I heard that some crack scene groups got sent to prison in Germany for tampering with Denuvo, if anything thats anticonsumer

You surely can provide a source about the Denuvo case?

Besides: Pro-consumer doesn't mean anything goes. Everything is based in the current laws.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/denuvo-investigation-reportedly-leads-to-arrest-for-games-pirate-voksi

Voksi is Bulgarian, not German. Bulgaria is in the EU, though.

The current justice system is the best one money can buy.

Quoting: M@GOidWhile this is not a endorsement for Nintendo's behavior, I thought it was common sense you don't create a emulator for a videogame still on sale, or else the manufacturers will send their minions after you.

You thought wrong. Snes9x started as the merger of two projects called snes96 and snes97 wat back in the 90s, both emulators released while the SNES was still being sold. Snes9x is probably the most popular and we'll known SNES emulator and is that old. Dolphin was released while the GameCube was being sold and continued its life throughout both the GameCube's life and Wii's life as an emulator for both. ePSXe was released for the PS1 while the PS1 was being sold. I could go on, but my memory is hazy.

Point is, how current the system is, is irrelevant.

Please for my sanity and for moderation, don't quote ridiculous conspiracy theories. I've removed a user, and will be cleaning up the comments. This is not the place for stupid conspiracy stuff about the US, Germany, Russia etc etc etc.

As much as I hate Nintendon't, the Yuzu/Citra team weren't the cleanest bunch around either. And I'm not just talking about the TOTK/piracy stuff.

Here is an excellent writeup that I've stumbled upon. I find it hard to symphatise with them after reading this. Basically they have not only literally invited Nintendo in with bright signs to the front door, but also made other emulators' lifes a bit more miserable due to their "armchair lawyering".


Last edited by LupertEverett on 6 March 2024 at 9:50 pm UTC