this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
259 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
60102 readers
3159 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Source?
Not disbelieving, but I've never heard this before.
I tried looking for it, but all my searches are flooded with articles about this current takedown wave. I did find a forum post talking about it, though, so I know I'm not crazy.
I might try searching again later, in which case I'll edit this comment.
Also, I know this isn't really relevant to the question, but the Yuzu team was doing some really shady stuff, even ignoring the development kit usage. For instance, they were collecting telemetry data from all of their users and were using illegally obtained roms to optimize Yuzu, to the point where the Yuzu team was able to get games to work before the game's official release
They did do shady stuff but I hate that the "TOTK worked on the Switch perfectly on release day" is thrown around as an argument. It's an emulator, emulating the switch hardware, if it does it's job well of course it'll do that.
I know that they used leaked builds but that just annoys me.
And obligatory, fuck Nintendo.
I've seen hearsay that there have been Yuzu patches specifically to aid compatibility with TOTK before it was officially out, which would have greatly supported the "mainly/primarily used for piracy" argument in court.
I would agree with you, but there was apparently evidence that specific patches were made that allowed TOTK to work. And then if you take a look at the link, there were screenshots of the Nintendo documents to suggest that TOTK apparently was not the Yuzu team's first rodeo when it came to patching for pre-release games
I kind of want to just see the evidence. No offense, but the heresay is obnoxious.
It doesn't matter if there's patches to make it work specifically, if they don't contain Nintendo's code. At most they could accuse whoever contributed the patch with piracy / breach of NDA or similar for having downloaded the ROM prior to release (couldn't have purchased it) but that doesn't impact the emulator itself
IIRC they also had some stuff going around about how Tears of the Kingdom ran better on the emulator than the actual Switch.
Pretty sure that was the point at which Nintendo decided to unleash the dogs on them
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/3/24147936/nintendo-dmca-takedown-yuzu-emulator-copies
It's true. They used Nintendo's own cryptographic keys to make the yuzu switch emulation work.
That's not "proprietary code", those are keys. And they actually didn't include keys, Yuzu did require you to supply a key, however a lot of them were then derived from the key supplied.
And there is no other way to do emulation and a whole host of other things if you can't use their keys. Make no mistake, Nintendo wishes it could make using the keys at all illegal.
Here's the thing. The creators of Yuzu folded which is a win as far as Nintendo is concerned and a loss for everyone else who uses the yuzu emulators. Your semantics about the situation aren't helping. All I did was supply a link to a news story that was already available on Lemmy on literally the technology community. This has already been hashed out.
That's not code and Texas Instruments already lost on that one
The distribution of DRM encryption keys is very storied.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
And Nintendo won.
They didn't win, they did an out-of-court settlement.
Something something legal precedence. This hasn't gone through court yet, has it?
And if Nintendo has its way (which they did this go round) they won't have to. They got what they wanted and they're not having to spend ridiculous amounts of money (that there's basically no way to re-coup) on litigation. They sued a guy who can never pay them back what the court says he owes them. I doubt they want to go through that again. Easier to just for arbitrate the proceedings.