After Nintendo recently filed a lawsuit against the Yuzu team, it was pretty much inevitable this was going to happen wasn't it.
    • MentalEdgeEnglish
      9·
      9 months ago

      Not sure settlements count as precedent, do they?

      This seems like Yuzu going “yeah sure whatever easy way out, it’s open source and this won’t achieve even a little bit of what Nintendo is hoping”

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        Not really, based on their Twitter statement. It seems like they swallowed the ‘piracy bad, we must stop piracy, and therefore this app’ hook line and sinker.

        • MentalEdgeEnglish
          8·
          9 months ago

          Except that literally any and all communication from them, starting the second they agreed to settle, is probably part of the deal.

          You think Nintendo wouldn’t have forced “no smug public statements about how this doesn’t matter” into the terms?

          You see it all the time, big companies want you bent over and taking it in the ass at every possible angle when this stuff happens.

            • MentalEdgeEnglish
              4·
              9 months ago

              A settlement can include whatever compensation Nintendo might demand. Like public statements written by Nintendo, but published as if from Yuzu. It’s all been seen before.

              You do whatever we ask, and we stop coming after you so this doesn’t have to go to court. That’s what a settlement is.

              Yuzu accepted it because it likely costs less, but the second they did, their own opinions and views ceased to exist. They are operating under the demands of the deal now.

              And none of it matters. The code is out there.

              • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                9 months ago

                It’s annoying that if it would have gone to court it would have probably lost because the system in most western countries (not sure which exact one Yuzu is based in) is based in such a way that intellectual ‘property’ needs to be considered a real thing in terms of law to protect people who make ideas/information rather than material things so they have an income (because an income is necessary in this economic system) so therefore piracy is against the law and information itself is policed - ironically, it was the Nazis who burned books, and China with its Great Firewall that were justly criticised.

                But when a big company like Nintendo, in kahoots with the western legal system wants to control the spread of information (code is just information), most people don’t care or even support it. As though they think a country where a few large companies can stop information being legally or easily shared is great, because it makes sure people pay for their art or music (money they need because there is a universal basic income - which is clearly (/s) terrible or inconceivable).

                Sorry about the wall of text, I feel that kind of ran on a bit. But I have a lot of frustration I need to get out about this that can only be negated by ranting at strangers on the Internet who have no more power than me to do anything about it.

                • MentalEdgeEnglish
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  I fully agree. This is BS.

                  But it also won’t achieve even an inch of Nintendo’s goals.

                  All they’ve achieved is to publicly embarrass some emudevs, which won’t even make people turn away from emulation out of some kind of aversion for their “disgrace”.

                  The opposite. This will spread awareness of the option to emulate Nintendo games to more players than ever.

                  They literally beheaded a hydra. Yeah, it hurt the hydra. Yeah, the Yuzu Devs will have to parrot whatever Nintendo wants them to say, and pay them a bunch of money.

                  But it will just grow two more heads.

      • PenguinCoder@beehaw.orgEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        Good point, not really a legal precedent but surely one that others will point to for ‘avoidance’.