this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
212 points (99.5% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54539 readers
196 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
iirc it was yuzu who linked tools to do it, but the application itself didnt do it. Yuzus main problem was often linking to resources and advertising stuff, and partially locking it behind a paywall.
No, yuzu's main problem was being a for-profit company. That seemed to be central to Nintendo's case against them. The company behind yuzu was making millions.
Paid emulators have existed for ages and have won in US courts before.
They allegedly also advertised that newegames, like TotK was running better on the EA builds and there's the suspicion that the yuzu team also distributed the keys via torrents. All of these are just allegations, though.
The paywall as far as I know isn't that much of problem. Cemu has/had a paywall for years. Several other, though less successful, emulators have had paywalled content/early access as well. The BLEEM emulator that was brought to court was a paid commercial product. So that currently is perfectly legal within the jurisdiction of those cases. Nintendo's case against Yuzu was about piracy/DRM circumvention. That wasn't brought to court, so we don't know the outcome however.