Yuzu to pay $2.4 Million Dollars in Damage to Nintendo. Citra also affected. Asks Judge to set Legal Precedent against other Emulators.

[PocketNerd]

20 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/support/hardware/ps3/system-software/

 

?

 

ps4 is the same procedure, ps5 probably too (tho no emus tho lol)

 

ps:

 

xbox 

 

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/xbox-360/console/system-updates-info

Update != full BIOS / Firmware

[starsmine]

Just now, Mihle said:

Are the individual people liable for it or just yuzu as a company? Are they even a true company?

they were an LLC, so the individual people should be insulated.

[Mihle]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

they were an LLC, so the individual people should be insulated.

Then they are just going to file for bankruptcy and only whatever their assets can pay for will be paid, the rest won't, I think.

[Sharkyx1]

19 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Are the individual people liable for it or just yuzu as a company? Are they even a true company?

Very good question 

 

Would have to look in the filing. I've heard it referenced there is a name for the organization, not sure if it's a corporation 

[wanderingfool2]

45 minutes ago, starsmine said:

they were an LLC, so the individual people should be insulated.

Depends, if Nintendo can show that he was breaching fiduciary duty then he could be liable.

[starsmine]

32 minutes ago, Sharkyx1 said:

Very good question 

 

Would have to look in the filing. I've heard it referenced there is a name for the organization, not sure if it's a corporation 

It takes zero effort to look up in the thread or look up tropic haze LLC to find out it’s an LLC

 

I know my tone is blunt, but you don’t have to speculate when you literally don’t have to speculate.

the filling is also openly available 

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Update != full BIOS / Firmware

no, this wrong,  as already explained, the update contains full bios and os.

 

 

how tf else would the emulator even work? (rpcs3 and xenia at least,  others are more sketchy to get the bios) 

[darknessblade]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:06 PM, TetraSky said:

They just gave up without a fight...

Because Nintendo 100% would've dragged this on, costing them way too much in legal fees.

 

I went ahead and saved the latest version of Yuzu when this whole thing started. Considering it's open source, though.... Cut one head and 10 more will spawn from it. They will just be more careful about it.

Sadly many bad actors will also rebrand it and include malware into the sourcecode. then promote it as a functional emulator that is just as good as YUZU.

 

Since it works. you won't notice the malware running in the background.

Especially when it is programmed to give a generic error, making you restart/close it, but you won't notice the hidden program running in the background that has a identical process-ID to the emulator, You will only notice it if you check taskmanager, and know what to look for.

 

[Sharkyx1]

3 hours ago, starsmine said:

It takes zero effort to look up in the thread or look up tropic haze LLC to find out it’s an LLC

 

I know my tone is blunt, but you don’t have to speculate when you literally don’t have to speculate.

the filling is also openly available 

No stress. The simple answer is, based on the previous post I was saying the same thing as you said in the comment im replying to now.

 

Mihle or whatever the above posters name is asked if they were a company and I replied with "[you] could look up the filing [and find out for yourself]"

 

My meaning was the same as yours, that finding the info is trivial. I just don't actually care if they are an LLC and I don't care what their name is. So it wasn't something I was going to look up for the other poster.

[rcmaehl]

23 hours ago, OhYou_ said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.56980/gov.uscourts.rid.56980.10.0.pdf
 

I'll add this. Thank you

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

Sadly many bad actors will also rebrand it and include malware into the sourcecode. then promote it as a functional emulator that is just as good as YUZU.

why rebrand? just call it yuzu lol!

 

what they gonna do, sue you?  

[Lurick]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

why rebrand? just call it yuzu lol!

 

what they gonna do, sue you?  

yuzu-totally-legit-rebuild.net

[williamcll]

Oh well I've been using the cracked versions on other repos anyway

[Lunar River]

9 hours ago, Lurick said:

yuzu-totally-legit-rebuild.net

ReYuzu

[kitnoman]

I've already seen reuploads with different names in the 24hr time period. I just hope another one release and renamed as Nintendo Zuyu or Zu-U, pronounced as "Sue you"

[Stahlmann]

16 hours ago, starsmine said:

calling a patron monetization that doesn't come close to covering costs feels disingenuous. The devs are still essentially donating their time, they just are not paying as much out of pocket for the website. No one makes money in this scene they just gain experience. 

But if the rumors are true of them patron walling a patch for the new zelda game, that's where yuzu fucked up. 

Locking your software behind a Patreon subscription is paywalling. The water gets muddy since they're only locking their latest versions and I don't know what the exact differences are compared to the free version. I personally view emulator devs similar to modders. Modding should only ever be a passion project. They're essentially working on somebody else's IP. Once they paywall that modding work, it's basically just getting paid off somebody else's IP. If their earnings are enough to cover their costs is irrelevant in this discussion imo. Modders asking for donations are fine, but paywalling your mods (or emulators) isn't good.

 

I don't know where exactly they screwed up legally, but it's pretty clear that they did. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to a settlement before this even went to court. If this really wasn't a profitable business, then $2.4 million hurts a lot. Paying a 2.4 million settlement would probably catapult most hobby developers straight into poverty, probably for the rest of their life. I certainly wouldn't give up that kind of money if I had any chance of defending myself.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I personally view emulator devs similar to modders. Modding should only ever be a passion project. They're essentially working on somebody else's IP. Once they paywall that modding work, it's basically just getting paid off somebody else's IP.

Legally they can't do this. If you paywall mods, you are basically admitting to intentionally profiting off someone elses IP, because mods often involve using code or assets from the software in a way that would not be considered fair use. Why else would you have the paywall? So the copyright holder can't find it in google.

 

That said, I've seen other "projects" mostly of adult nature do this exact thing on Patreon to hide questionably legal stuff. Stuff I know VISA would have a fit over.

 

There is one way to still "make money" with other people's IP via Patreon, and that's by essentially setting up the Patreon to go directly into the developer's pocket. There's no deliverables behind the Patreon. Getting Patreon access gives you access to the developer, not the software.

 

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Why else would you have the paywall? So the copyright holder can't find it in google.

 

That said, I've seen other "projects" mostly of adult nature do this exact thing on Patreon to hide questionably legal stuff. Stuff I know VISA would have a fit over.

 

There is one way to still "make money" with other people's IP via Patreon, and that's by essentially setting up the Patreon to go directly into the developer's pocket. There's no deliverables behind the Patreon. Getting Patreon access gives you access to the developer, not the software.

Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. A paywall will probably make it harder for copyright owners to find it. And from my experience with mods, most mods that are paywalled also happen to be NSFW or something else that the original developers would probably not want in their game. So the argument that they're trying to "hide" their work from you unless you're part of a certain clientele also makes sense. It's basically a "if you have to ask, it's not for you" situation with these kinds of mods. Emulation and piracy in general have a very similar mentality.

[Mark Kaine]

14 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you paywall mods, you are basically admitting to intentionally profiting off someone elses IP, because mods often involve using code or assets from the software in a way that would not be considered fair use

while i don't think you're wrong on principle... 

TWO things tho: i think it still depends on what the mod actually does and how it was made (im fairly certain a huge amount of mods is just like models injected into the game and game engines are mostly well known... is reverse engineering involved?  probably. maybe not... but you gotta proof that first either way)

 

also paid mods not fair use? well again,  maybe, but the truth is there's a gazillion (probably actually millions) paid mods available right now,  and no one really bothers doing something about it,  there's also a huge can of worms to discover here how fans will react when their fav modders are being dragged before a court by ea, nintendo, ms, etc, etc...

 

point is: it doesn't typically happen,  probably not at last because its legally difficult...

 

so i modded mickey mouse into final fantasy?  who sues me now? square or disney? both? oh boy. 

and its really not fair use? just because i got paid a small compensation?

 

well that's at least questionable no?

 

that's kinda why these laws exist in the first place - its still a fan project in the end. 

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Legally they can't do this. If you paywall mods, you are basically admitting to intentionally profiting off someone elses IP

I dont see an issue with it, why a mod dev should not be able to charge for their time writing the code? Its like saying that the trinus vr project is also illegal because it is profiting off of sonys psvr.........

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Legally they can't do this. If you paywall mods, you are basically admitting to intentionally profiting off someone elses IP, because mods often involve using code or assets from the software in a way that would not be considered fair use. Why else would you have the paywall? So the copyright holder can't find it in google.

What are you referring to legally they can't do this?

 

In regards to copyright infringement stuff it doesn't matter if it's really for commercial gain or not; still will be a violation just the penalties will differ.

 

The portion where mods usually get in trouble is if they release the modded binary.  If it's done in almost a clean room environment, and requires the user to essentially include the game for them then there isn't an issue.  The other issue with a lot of mods is that they do use assets that they distribute that don't belong to them, but again it can be done without.

 

When it's done without, it either takes a lot larger of a passion project or they are effectively being paid to do it.

 

That's one reason why you sometimes do get something like Yuzu which asks for money essentially.  It allows them to attract the talent they need in order to write it, and they withhold just enough to entice some people.  Actually it's not a bad model overall if they manage to stick out of legal trouble, although in this case it seems they might have toed the line in a few too many places.

 

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't know where exactly they screwed up legally, but it's pretty clear that they did. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to a settlement before this even went to court. If this really wasn't a profitable business, then $2.4 million hurts a lot. Paying a 2.4 million settlement would probably catapult most hobby developers straight into poverty, probably for the rest of their life. I certainly wouldn't give up that kind of money if I had any chance of defending myself.

Settling doesn't mean they were guilty.

 

Copyright cases like this are expensive, and Nintendo has enough grounds to have it so if Yuzu won they wouldn't likely be able to collect lawyers fees [as I think it's up to the trial court to rule if lawyers fees should be paid to the defendant if the defendant wins].

 

So they could realistically be spending millions defending themselves; the whole concept of suing a company into bankruptcy or making it so they can never really recover.

 

So settling and giving up everything doesn't mean you think you are guilty...just that you are trying to  protect yourself from potentially a worse outcome (even if you win you could be in a worse situation)

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

so i modded mickey mouse into final fantasy?  who sues me now? square or disney? both? oh boy. 

and its really not fair use? just because i got paid a small compensation?

 

That's called Kingdom Hearts.

 

 

From a legal perspective, "mods" never pass the IP infringement test. This is why things like fan-translations historically require you to dump the rom yourself, that trivial step that they don't pass around the pirated ROM is how it manages to be "not worth pursuing"

 

I could make the same argument with the Mario 64 PC project. They clearly did not re-create the entire game from scratch, and for you to play it, the technical step you'd need to do is acquire the N64 rom and use whatever tool necessary to extract the assets from it and re-insert into the PC binary. In practice, script kiddies just distribute it around like any other pirated thing.

 

As long as the developer isn't involved in it, Nintendo can go after sites hosting the patched game, but not the source code, since the source code doesn't compile alone to the N64 game.

 

Most "soft mods", like those done to unity games, don't actually change the game on-disk, usually only inject code or models/assets by inserting functionality into it. Modding is only tolerated in certain games because the developer says modding is allowed as long as certain rules are followed.  The rule at the top of those lists is typically "no commercial gain", so you can't sell the mod, you can't create a private server, you can't use it to acquire things for free you have to pay for, and so forth.

 

Nintendo, and pretty much ONLY Nintendo, is aggressively hostile to any kind of fan works, especially those outside Japan. There are piles of Zelda and Pokemon "fan" things that have been aggressively taken down. This is one of the reasons why I generally advise people that want to make "fan" art/fic/game/translations etc to actually google search if someone has tried it before, because Japanese companies are nearly universally hostile to this. It's Nintendo alone that has the image of taking things to excessive levels.

 

SEGA, has never particularly done this. https://screenrant.com/sonic-hedgehog-fan-games-sega-response-legal-allowed/

Quote

Responding to Sonic fans' questions on Twitter, franchise social media manager Katie Chrzanowski finally revealed the Sega's official stance on fan games involving the blue hedgehog. She reassured them that Sega “usually* has no issue with y’all using our blue boy to hone your art and dev skills,” as long as those fan games are not monetized in any way. Chrzanowski goes on to point out however, that the use of the asterisk in her tweet is due to "legal reasons."

Basically "don't make tasteless fan works", It's one thing to make Sonic fan games, it's another to make a garbage game and then just throw Sonic in it because it will make Sonic Fans seek it out.

 

[jagdtigger]

19 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Modding is only tolerated in certain games because the developer says modding is allowed as long as certain rules are followed.

Like the dev has any say what users do with their copy they own, its asinine how ppl think this is fine. Its like VW sending me a letter that lists how i can use my car and they will sue me if i get any financial gain out of it (like going to work).......

[starsmine]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Like the dev has any say what users do with their copy they own, its asinine how ppl think this is fine. Its like VW sending me a letter that lists how i can use my car and they will sue me if i get any financial gain out of it (like going to work).......

they dont, its the distribution that becomes the issue. The whole issue at hand is the copying and distribution. 

If you make a mod to a VW, but your modification copies one of VW's patents, and you sell something that includes one of their patents, even if its for the VW, you are not really protected for your illegal use of the patent

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

they dont, its the distribution that becomes the issue.

Not an issue, like at all. You just have to use differentials, these only contain the parts you changed and have ownership of. The company cannot do anything against that.