1037
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1037 points (99.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55076 readers
460 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a fairly big difference between "you're making an emulator for a console we stopped selling anything for a decade ago" and "you are actively cutting into the sales of everything we are currently doing"
Frankly, Im not quite sure what anyone expected. Of course they were going to go after them harder tan usual, especially when they made it pretty obvious they used proprietary code from TOTK. I'm as pro-piracy as they come, but ya still gotta use some of your brain.
E: sp
Eh, I don't really care. Now that every manufacturer and developer under the sun has decided I don't own the games I buy. I couldn't care less about their games getting pirated. I mean, I don't own the game anyway according to their ToS, I just rent it.
But it's more than that. I can't even find old game isos easily anymore. Nintendo went out of their way to threaten legal action against sites that had been up for over a decade so they could do their shitty online emulator store.
They're going after everyone now. I bought my switch in 2016, won't be buying another one.
I'm not saying they're right for it, just stating what reality is. Anyone with half a brain knew this was coming the second they used proprietary code.
used code from totk? What? They implemented patches early using knowledge from it, but including even a single line from the game would be incredibly stupid and contradictory to having to dump your keys in the first place
Watching the latest accursed farms video was very eye opening, even services like GOG with no DRM probably still have that legalese where you don't own the files, but in reality you do since they can't stop you from playing them, the legal sphere is even more of fantasyland than I thought, it actively denies reality.
@NocturnalMorning @Alto Just avoid them as possible. On GoG.com you can buy PC games without any DRM. I even bought a game I already own, just to have a legit DRM free version like Skyrim and Fallout 4.
They didnt use any code from TOTK (such would be piracy); they did however use it to improve the emulator via game specific patches before the release date (hinting some devs got the game less than legally, but not yuzu itself)
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.
Sega v. Accolade was about using proprietary code, Sega lost and the small snippet of code that was reverse engineered out of the Genesis was deemed fair use because there was no other way to get an unlicensed cartridge to run on the console
Yes. I agree and said as much elsewhere in this thread.
My issue was with your statement of
Where, no, there is not a difference there.