Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers

296 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1037

Nintendo sues Switch emulator Yuzu for ‘facilitating piracy at a colossal scale’ (www.theverge.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

320 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Yes. I agree and said as much elsewhere in this thread.

My issue was with your statement of

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”

Where, no, there is not a difference there.