• meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      IANAL, but they should be fine since they aren’t decrypting / breaking DRM they same way Yuzu was. They are a much cleaner codebase, much more similar to mGBA and Dolphin.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        But did yuzu actually break DRM? I thought that if I dumped my own game and keys with a modded (1st gen) switch and feed all of that into yuzu, nothing illegal would be going on.

        • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t believe Yuzu went to court, but that was the accusation Nintendo was suing them over. Ryujinx wasn’t sued, so Nintendo either didn’t believe they had done the same, or didn’t care. We didn’t get to have a discovery process for the case to find out for sure, so we don’t know.

          • Dudewitbow
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

            • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

            • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

          • john89@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ryujinx wasn’t sued, so Nintendo either didn’t believe they had done the same, or didn’t care.

            Ryujinx is nowhere near as popular as Yuzu, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

            • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s also possible that they wouldn’t win against Ryujinx. There’s evidence of Yuzu devs sharing roms with each other to test out games, so it’s possible that they settled to avoid discovery.

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is probably in a legal grey area in the US. The Yuzu case was settled out of court because Nintendo had dirt on the team behind it, so it’s unclear whether a judge would rule that this kind of circumvention is legal.