This also includes ceasing development and destroying their copies of the code.
The GitHub repo page for Yuzu now returns a 404, as well. In addition, the repo for the Citra 3DS emulator was also taken down.
As of at least 23:30 UTC, Yuzu’s website and Citra’s website have been replaced with a statement about their discontinuation.
Other sources found by @Daughter3546@lemmy.world:
- https://gbatemp.net/threads/yuzu-emulator-shutting-down-paying-nintendo-2-4-million-in-lawsuit-settlement.650039/
- https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendos-yuzu-lawsuit-puts-emulation-in-the-spotlight-opinion
- https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-says-tears-of-the-kingdom-was-pirated-1-million-times-pre-release-in-lawsuit-against-emulator-creator
There is also an active Reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1b6gtb5/
I’m sorry but how is using the actual keys from a legally purchased system circumventing anything? It’s like saying using the actual key to your own front door counts as breaking and entering.
Does a settlement like this set any kind of precedent?
According to the article:
They are asking a federal judge to say yes to this, specifically:
Developing or distributing software, including Yuzu, that in its ordinary course functions only when cryptographic keys are integrated without authorization, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition on trafficking in devices that circumvent effective technological measures, because the software is primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing technological measures.
So I think they’re definitely intending to set precedent with this case, though this settlement hasn’t been accepted by the court yet.
AFAIK settlements can’t be used as precedent. IANAL tho.
Maybe precedent isn’t the right term, I worry a statement from an emulator author basically saying “emulators are DRM circumvention devices”, could be used as evidence in future though?
Lawyer here, and generally no. At best, the judgment could be persuasive to other courts in the First Circuit–and of course that’s what Nintendo wants, hence the effort to craft language that could be easily ported to other sympathetic courts–but the legal theory is absolutely not binding on other parties until/unless the finding/rationale is adopted by a higher court.
Do you think it’s possible that Nintendo is having the devs agree to that statement is a way for them to prevent others from forking Yuzu and continuing development? If someone stripped out the ROM decryption code, it would be harder to claim the fork falls under 17 U.S.C. 1201 as a circumvention tool. By having the original creators state it is, would it open up derivative works to being classified as one in future lawsuits regardless of whether it still contains the questionable code?
It’s already a tragedy if original developers will no longer work on it. They also worked on citra. Generally speaking, I think human resource is crucial and emu devs aren’t doing enough to protect themselves.
