> Yuzu can be blamed for TotK piracy
But they can be legally blamed for not taking any steps to prevent it.
Which means there are two avenues for Nintendo to attack this situation.
But they can be legally blamed for not taking any steps to prevent it.
Which means there are two avenues for Nintendo to attack this situation.
Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of manslaughter for doing nothing to prevent her son from shooting up his school.
That was criminal court with a much higher standard than a civil case.
Nintendo has consistently been one of the strongest protectors of their IP, and a defense that says “We tell users not to commit piracy” is about as effective as a sex workers disclaimer that “money is exchanged for time.”
Software developers should not be held liable for what their users do with the software unless the software itself does something illegal (such as malware that gains unauthorized access to secure systems). If developers were responsible for their users then you would have all kinds of bizarre lawsuits. You would be able to sue Microsoft for things written by users in Word. It wouldn't be a stretch to sue Linux contributers because someone used the OS to perform a DOS attack or to host a scam site.
I think Nintendo would be banking that the Yuzu team likely had lax (if at anything) policies and processes for compliance to their public stance on piracy.
The whole point of emulation is that you want to play content for which the original hardware no longer exists. And so there is no harm being done to anyone.
This situation is obviously quite different because Nintendo is being harmed.
It's not piracy to play a game that you've backed up on different hardware than the original developers intended.
https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#Is_lib...
But there is also the DMCA, and the anti-circumvention provision, which can be attributed a lot more to the user backing up their game than it can be to the developers of the emulator. But that wouldn't be the same thing as copyright infringement.
That said, if the"interoperability exception" applies to anything at all, I feel like it should apply here. You are circumventing copy protection mechanisms for the explicit purpose of interoperability with other software.
On moral grounds, I also have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with someone circumventing copy protection mechanisms to make a copy of a thing they bought to use for personal use. The fact that that could be potentially illegal at all is disgusting.
If only we had a universal way to easily distribute data, without need to heavily license it, instead opting for easily accessible licenses from reputable sources at market prices...
(we do, but torrents got a bad name)
Netflix was a success not because it was a streaming service with a license fee, but because it provided unfettered access to data for a small fee.
Of course, now there are AIs which can or will shortly be able to trivially reproduce most data formats, so that's a separate issue as far as that goes (and that's bad too, if AI spells the complete death of DMCA), but it really didn't need to be this complicated.
Make your brand well recognized, make your products easy to obtain, go after the pirates not the users. I own a switch and TBH a lot of my enthusiasm is pretty chilled by Nintendo's dickery - I'm less likely to purchase their products (and I'll elsewhere with non-Nintendo stuff - and Nintendo's stuff is honestly becoming a lot of locked down crap these days).
Your OS emulates. The companies that made the chips you run them on emulate their own hardware. The company in the headline emulate their own video game hardware and sell it to their customers.
And the weak chipset on the switch is a big reason to want to use emulators without piracy.
And there's modding too.
Your "whole point" is very far from whole.
Similar to the approach that have been used in various jurisdictions against torrent sites.