Nintendo Sues Yuzu: The End of Emulators?
- Thread starter ls612
- Start date
amadeus
Serenity now
If they’re including instructions on piracy, they might have a case. Emulation itself, assuming that it does not contain any private copied material from Nintendo, has never to my knowledge established to be illegal.
Going back at least to PC computing, early IBM PC compatible computers were challenged by IBM on the grounds that IBM’s BIOS code had been copied. After an independent, compatible BIOS was developed the legal challenges were dropped.
Nintendo’s argument that buying a copy of their software includes an implicit license for Nintendo to regulate how it is used after purchase, I don’t know about the legality of that—I know this has been a case that purchasers of computerized tractors complained that manufacturers said after the fact they reserve an exclusive license to repairs (if memory serves correctly)—and I think this had been challenged successfully, that is to say that they cannot retain certain rights to your equipment after you purchase it.
Going back at least to PC computing, early IBM PC compatible computers were challenged by IBM on the grounds that IBM’s BIOS code had been copied. After an independent, compatible BIOS was developed the legal challenges were dropped.
Nintendo’s argument that buying a copy of their software includes an implicit license for Nintendo to regulate how it is used after purchase, I don’t know about the legality of that—I know this has been a case that purchasers of computerized tractors complained that manufacturers said after the fact they reserve an exclusive license to repairs (if memory serves correctly)—and I think this had been challenged successfully, that is to say that they cannot retain certain rights to your equipment after you purchase it.
A commonly-floated idea is that Nintendo are ramping up for the long-rumoured Switch 2. Emulation was a big issue with early Switch releases as the hardware just couldn't stack up against modern PC hardware running the same (emulated) code.
Nintendo are famously protective of their IP anyway, so this isn't really a surprise. Apparently Yuzu have been getting a bit loud with how they're the main (only? at this point I think) Switch emulator, and Nintendo frequently smack down fan projects for any number of reasons. I suspect there might be issues for Nintendo if this goes to court over the emulation (as amadeus mentions), but also they can probably afford to just bury the case in lawyers if it gets to that. It's not so much about being right, as being able to win the case legally.
Nintendo are famously protective of their IP anyway, so this isn't really a surprise. Apparently Yuzu have been getting a bit loud with how they're the main (only? at this point I think) Switch emulator, and Nintendo frequently smack down fan projects for any number of reasons. I suspect there might be issues for Nintendo if this goes to court over the emulation (as amadeus mentions), but also they can probably afford to just bury the case in lawyers if it gets to that. It's not so much about being right, as being able to win the case legally.
amadeus
Serenity now
I suspect the Yuzu folks must have done something boneheaded because Nintendo hasn’t shied away from litigation before (Galoob) and emulators have been around since the 1990’s.
I’m not sure what kind of law you would want crafted; I think holding it at the judicial level is the right place for it, settling it in cases and establishing precedents rather than codifying something squishy like this into written law.
I’m not sure what kind of law you would want crafted; I think holding it at the judicial level is the right place for it, settling it in cases and establishing precedents rather than codifying something squishy like this into written law.
I do not see anything squishy about being able to run open source code that solves real world problems on my general purpose computer. The fact that it can get so far and even be considered questionably legal seems to demonstrate to me that the law is wrong.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Emulators have a very good track record in courts, and Nintendo has tried stuff like this before. Notably, their lawsuit is also effectively calling for an end to right-to-repair, which is having A Moment right now, so this is a really, really aggressive suit. It truly basically says all emulators are always illegal and all technology can be 100% protected forever from any changes by owners. Really wild and terrible and harmful argument.
On the one hand, the US courts are increasingly a wasteland of conspiratorial judges with little love of precedent. On the other hand, there is such a long run of emulator protection I’d be surprised if Nintendo comes anywhere near sniffing victory. They’ve been trying stuff like this for decades; in the early 90s they attempted a lawsuit that would make game rentals illegal. Very bloodthirsty company that hides behind the veneer of a friendly Italian plumber.
On the one hand, the US courts are increasingly a wasteland of conspiratorial judges with little love of precedent. On the other hand, there is such a long run of emulator protection I’d be surprised if Nintendo comes anywhere near sniffing victory. They’ve been trying stuff like this for decades; in the early 90s they attempted a lawsuit that would make game rentals illegal. Very bloodthirsty company that hides behind the veneer of a friendly Italian plumber.
Senethro
Overlord
They pay walled access and nintendo swoops. Not smart of them, and very predictable.
Who is they and what access? We are talking open source, there is little less paywalled software.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Yuzu had an early version of the emulator behind a paywall that could play The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.
Ah, I wondered what they'd done recently. AFAIK Valve also used their logo in some promotional material?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
This is nothing new, I recall Nintendo raising a big stink over Galoob’s Game Genie.
So Darth Mickey’s apprentice was Mario?
But it was open source, so the recipients could redistribute it? That is more open than just about any other distribution.
The history of open source and paid work has often been contentious, even when giant companies with armies of lawyers weren't ready to savage people for any perceived misstep. Locking emulation (or even specific featrues) behind a paywall is a very good way to suggest you are in fact charging for a product.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
They paywall support for early access. As others have mentioned the whole project is GPL licensed and anyone can download the source and build it themselves.
Senethro
Overlord
I don't like it and they don't deserve the assault by lawyer but they should have kept it as a plausibly deniable donate what you want link.
Why? The question of how to monetise OS software is still open, but I see nothing wrong with releasing the product as GPL and charging for support. Compare that to red hat who contactually prevent you using your legal right to redistribute GPL software they supply.
So in the United States, you actually do not have an inherent right to any software even if you purchase a copy of it on a disc to use on your computer. In all cases and this is established since ProCD v Zeidenberg, you are only being sold a limited license to use the software that can be unilaterally revoked by the seller at any time. Because you signed the EULA by installing the software and that is binding.
So if a company shuts down a game you don’t have a right to play it either even if you bought it. You certainly don’t have a right to copy it and you don’t have an inherent right to break it open and modify it either. Now for hardware emulation, as Amadeus said, maybe that’s okay. But ROMs? Really doesn’t look like it. The only distinction of abandonware is that the licenses aren’t being tested. But they’re still owned. And some dusty file cabinets somewhere will tell you who still owns them.
So if a company shuts down a game you don’t have a right to play it either even if you bought it. You certainly don’t have a right to copy it and you don’t have an inherent right to break it open and modify it either. Now for hardware emulation, as Amadeus said, maybe that’s okay. But ROMs? Really doesn’t look like it. The only distinction of abandonware is that the licenses aren’t being tested. But they’re still owned. And some dusty file cabinets somewhere will tell you who still owns them.
