GitHub: Nintendo Submit DMCA Notices to Yuzu Forks
github.com
github.com
Most sites are putting some sort of self-managed process in front of DMCA. They can remove anything they want because their terms allow it. It in turn makes copyright holders happy without any of the risk of false DMCA complaints.
I love technology because I think it enriches & enhances individuals. Our ability to impact the local & broader world goes hand in hand with our tool-making & tech (often is the same thing). Technology is amazing & great.
But layer in Intellectual Property law & suddenly technology is the infernal machine, is the anchor sinking humanity & tyrannizing the spirit. I feel a religious obligation above that of my state's requirements to smash this hell.
If Yuzu devs want their emulator to stay up, they shouldn't include those crypto keys. All they have to do is provide a user interface for users themselves to provide these keys.
> That's what Yuzu does... You have to provide your own prod and title keys. They aren't providing these for you.
> Same for any Switch emulator.
This reddit comment is implying that the claims in the DMCA notice are fraudulent.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1cie1rv/github_nin...
Mind share issue. Russia, as most of Ex-USSR, is a PC gaming country. To have an active emulation community, there has to be a massive following around the certain console in the first place. The most successful Nintendo items in the region were Chinese NES clones.
No rational person is going to fight a DMCA from Nintendo. Nintendo would in no circumstances not file a DMCA against a Yuzu fork. Additionally, the settlement required that all of the core developers, who would know it best, are never permitted to work on a Nintendo emulator ever again. Thus, Yuzu is completely dead.
Is it a smart idea? No; but a profitable emulator should be just as legal as an unprofitable one. But where it involves breaking digital locks, as Nintendo may successfully demonstrate, the DMCA makes both illegal.
That Yuzu reportedly has generally better performance than a Switch console couldn't have helped, either.
Making money and credible potential to eat into sales. A less litigious company would still have complained.
From my understanding, this part is not true (though it is widely touted).
There were third parties that made the necessary fixes to run the game in their own forks, but Yuzu proper did not release any fixes until after the game came out, even in the pre-release versions.
What does that even mean? I think you mean: "the fact that yuzu could be run on hardware that allowed it to perform better than a switch console".
Emulation, by it's very nature, will always perform worse. But the underlying hardware could be significantly better.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been any judgement but a private settlement has been made.
It's true that you can't really defend your rights against a corporation as big as Nintendo though.
Even if Yuzu succeeded in overturning the takedown, Nintendo could prevail in the court of law on the merits of the DMCA. Overturning a takedown is easy - just file a counter notice. Expect to be seen in court if you do that, though.
Edit: For the "On the technological protection measures, it hasn't been judged," look at Apple vs Psystar. A case where breaking TPMs came up, which actually was fought to the point of where a SCOTUS appeal was the last step remaining. Psystar was annihilated - and let me tell you, emulating macOS on non-Mac hardware sounds a lot like emulating Video Games on non-Nintendo hardware.
On the technological protection measures, it hasn't been judged and it's kind of a gray area since Yuzu didn't came with any in it to my knowledge at least.
That's also maybe why the settlement is there.
Edit: for your edit, Psystar wasn't emulating anything, they were actively modifying software. That's closer to a software crack on how it works than emulation.
Apple vs Corelium is closer to the concept since Corelium was emulating the hardware.
These two cases have very little to do with each other outside of the cryptographic portion.
Arguably this is likely the case with this situation (and nintendo benefits by our not knowing for sure), not that being forced into such an agreement with no trial is not worrisome in itself.