634
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
634 points (99.2% liked)
Open Source
29773 readers
930 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If Nintendo can prove that the primary purpose of Yuzu is to circumvent Nintendo's encryption, there is a very real and very scary chance they could win the lawsuit.
17 USC §1201 (a)(2)
It's less about being right and more about Yuzu devs willing to spend a million dollars to defend themselves and risk a tens of millions of dollars ruling against them. The best case Yuzu will have is winning and court costs. Worse case is owing God knows how much to Nintendo. The system is bullshit.
The system is absolutely bullshit. If this makes it into a courtroom, the odds will likely be even further stacked against Yuzu. The chance of getting a judge that goes out of his/her way to understand the technical arguments is extremely low, and it's a lot easier to argue that unauthorized decryption is bypassing something than it is to argue that software needing to do it to work isn't primarily designed to do it.
Unless the EFF steps in and bankrolls Yuzu, the most realistic case here is that they settle out of court and Nintendo gets exactly what they want.
I'm no lawyer so I could be completely off-base, but I think the existence of homebrew can make all 3 points defensible, depending on what evidence exists about their primary intent being breaking the DRM. If they have posted publicly things like "this patch should bypass DRM for this particular game" then they would be screwed, but posts like "supports/extends this feature so we can better emulate the functionality in this particular game" should be fine? At least if I understand the precedent set by the Connectix ruling in addition to the wording of what you pasted?