Nintendo Switch emulator Yuzu will utterly fold and pay $2.4M to settle its lawsuit
www.theverge.com
Just about a week after getting sued.

This also includes ceasing development and destroying their copies of the code.

The GitHub repo page for Yuzu now returns a 404, as well. In addition, the repo for the Citra 3DS emulator was also taken down.

As of at least 23:30 UTC, Yuzu’s website and Citra’s website have been replaced with a statement about their discontinuation.

Other sources found by @Daughter3546@lemmy.world:

There is also an active Reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1b6gtb5/

      • echo64@lemmy.worldEnglish
        114·
        4 months ago

        Game preservation is explicitly exclusided from the dmca true, but only only when the game needs online servers which have now been shut down.

        So it would not work in this case at all.

        • Eggyhead@kbin.run
          4·
          4 months ago

          On an unrelated note…

          Exclusided

          Not sure how your device let that one slip but I’m actually kind of sad it’s not a real word.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.worldEnglish
        936·
        4 months ago

        They settled because they actively endorsed and proliferated illegal piracy.

        They couldn’t play that angle with what they were doing.

        • Eggyhead@kbin.run
          32·
          4 months ago

          Well that’s unfortunate, because Nintendo has a terrible track record for game preservation.

    • null@slrpnk.netEnglish
      32·
      4 months ago

      Is it piracy to play my legally purchased and backed up games on an emulator?

      Edit: a lot of people responding to this are accidentally answering the question above. Yes, those are the things they would have fought if they had the money to go up against Nintendo.

      To those saying that it is indeed piracy – pretty sure the law has disagreed up to this point. Note that Nintendo didn’t win this suit, Yuzu settled. No legal precedent set (yet).

      • echo64@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        4 months ago

        If you circumvent the copyright protection systems to do so, then under American law yes. If you don’t like this, you have to campaign for change.

        • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          4 months ago

          Do you believe there is a chance of success for campaigning for change?

          • echo64@lemmy.worldEnglish
            7·
            4 months ago

            Every few years, more things are added as exceptions to the DMCAs circumvention clause. There’s a whole host of exceptions, and they are all exceptions in favor of people over companies. Those exceptions came about because people who care fought for them.

            • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              4 months ago

              Do you have any specific examples and how long it took, or how much it cost? It seems farfetched to think it is feasible to counter the “anti circumvention technology” aspect of the DMCA.

              • pivot_root@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                6·
                4 months ago

                Wikipedia has an entire list of anti-circumvention exceptions under the page for the DMCA. I have no idea how those exceptions came to be or how much money and time was involved to make it happen, but it does seem to be changing in our benefit over time.

              • echo64@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                How is it far fetched when there’s a literal bunch of examples you can go find right now? You’re basing your estimation on zero evidence and doomerism.

                Try, apply yourself. Don’t just assume.

                • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  4 months ago

                  If I’m as successful changing law as I am changing minds on the internet then doomerism is an understatement.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        85·
        4 months ago

        Does it matter? I suspect that if that’s what you did, you were one of very few people doing so, and the law doesn’t require the absence of any possible legitimate use. In this case, something is illegal if it

        is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

        has only limited commercially significant purpose or use

        • null@slrpnk.netEnglish
          12·
          4 months ago

          You asked if there was a significant use-case. That’s what it is, and why emulators have remained legal up to this point.

          How many people take advantage of that use-case over piracy is a different point.

          Also the law has not decided anything here, yet. As far as the law is concerned, emulators are still legal.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            25·
            4 months ago

            It’s a use case, but I would argue that it’s not a significant use case.

            Emulators are still legal in theory, but I doubt that it is in practice possible to make an emulator for a modern video game system without violating some other part of the law.

            • null@slrpnk.netEnglish
              6·
              4 months ago

              It’s a use case, but I would argue that it’s not a significant use case.

              And that’s the answer to your question about what Yuzu would have fought if they had the money to take on Nintendo.

              Emulators are still legal in theory, but I doubt that it is in practice possible to make an emulator for a modern video game system without violating some other part of the law.

              That’s exactly what hasn’t been determined, since Yuzu settled and it didn’t go to court.