Yuzu (Nintendo Switch emulator) - Revision history

Ha1vorsen: /* Preliminary */

2024-03-01T07:09:14Z

Preliminary

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 1 March 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	From the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, Nintendo can be seen as the sole saviour of the video game market, previously rife with bootlegged software distribution and lackluster financial security. By moderating the ecosystem and enabling a common ground for consumers to play their games, eliminating the necessity for proprietary hardware for individual games, and implementing technological protection measures (TPMs) to prevent intellectual property theft, developers flocked to Nintendo as a video game platform and publisher. Nintendo solely decides which games are playable on their console via a series of hardware and software protections, protecting developers from the copying and distribution of bootlegged software - unlike any console that came before it. Nintendo originated as a playing card company from the 1800s, but video games are their legacy, especially ensuring their success as a company in the later years of its formation. Nintendo's success is a direct result of combating software pirates, and it should come as no surprise that Nintendo wants to protect itself from the consequences that led to the market original demise.		From the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, Nintendo can be seen as the sole saviour of the video game market, previously rife with bootlegged software distribution and lackluster financial security. By moderating the ecosystem and enabling a common ground for consumers to play their games, eliminating the necessity for proprietary hardware for individual games, and implementing technological protection measures (TPMs) to prevent intellectual property theft, developers flocked to Nintendo as a video game platform and publisher. Nintendo solely decides which games are playable on their console via a series of hardware and software protections, protecting developers from the copying and distribution of bootlegged software - unlike any console that came before it. Nintendo originated as a playing card company from the 1800s, but video games are their legacy, especially ensuring their success as a company in the later years of its formation. Nintendo's success is a direct result of combating software pirates, and it should come as no surprise that Nintendo wants to protect itself from the consequences that led to the market original demise.

	Games released and published by Nintendo currently are protected with numerous copyright protection measures to this day. The Nintendo Switch's operating, Horizon, is an example of flagship security-grade software, and Nintendo's most expansive and technically complicated OS. For example, to date, Horizon publicly has zero exploitable software vulnerabilities that enable high-severity attacks, such as kernel or TrustZone takeover, both of which can lead to the possibility of software piracy. Nintendo invests heavily in the security of its platform, and is widely known to use its position in the industry to deter and set examples for those who threaten it.		Games released and published by Nintendo currently are protected with numerous copyright protection measures to this day. The Nintendo Switch's operating, Horizon, is an example of flagship security-grade software, and Nintendo's most expansive and technically complicated OS. For example, to date, Horizon publicly has zero exploitable software vulnerabilities that enable high-severity attacks, such as kernel or TrustZone takeover, both of which can lead to the possibility of software piracy. Nintendo invests heavily in the security of its platform, and is widely known to use its position in the industry to deter and set examples for those who threaten it. Horizon is one of the most secure operating systems of the modern era, but that doesn't mean that the Nintendo Switch itself is iron-clad.

	~~However, in~~ early 2018, a [[Homebrew Dictionary#BootROM\|bootROM]] exploit for NVIDIA's Tegra X1 APU, known as [https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-6242 CVE-2018-6242] ([https://github.com/Qyriad/fusee-launcher/blob/master/report/fusee_gelee.md ''fusee-gelee'']), was documented and disclosed to NVIDIA, before later being disclosed to the public. As this particular APU is not only used in the Nintendo Switch, but devices such as the [[wikipedia:Pixel_C\|Google Pixel C]] tablet and [[wikipedia:Nvidia_Drive\|Nvidia Drive]] autonomous driving framework, it was necessary to inform NVIDIA of the exploit before the general public to prevent malpractice from bad actors, which could have dire implications. Because a bootROM runs before any piece of Nintendo's code, exploits within it bypass a vast majority of Nintendo's hardware security measures that protect the Nintendo Switch and its software. Fusee-gelee was a monumental discovery for reverse-engineering and documenting the Nintendo Switch.		In early 2018, a [[Homebrew Dictionary#BootROM\|bootROM]] exploit for NVIDIA's Tegra X1 APU, known as [https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-6242 CVE-2018-6242] ([https://github.com/Qyriad/fusee-launcher/blob/master/report/fusee_gelee.md ''fusee-gelee'']), was documented and disclosed to NVIDIA, before later being disclosed to the public. As this particular APU is not only used in the Nintendo Switch, but devices such as the [[wikipedia:Pixel_C\|Google Pixel C]] tablet and [[wikipedia:Nvidia_Drive\|Nvidia Drive]] autonomous driving framework, it was necessary to inform NVIDIA of the exploit before the general public to prevent malpractice from bad actors, which could have dire implications. Because a bootROM runs before any piece of Nintendo's code, exploits within it bypass a vast majority of Nintendo's hardware security measures that protect the Nintendo Switch and its software. Fusee-gelee was a monumental discovery for reverse-engineering and documenting the Nintendo Switch.

	This allowed further and widespread documentation of the Nintendo Switch, especially useful for emulator development. As it bypasses nearly all of Nintendo's security measures, its existence allows exploiters to obtain copies of their Nintendo Switch console's encryption keys, which are unique to every console, before access to those keys are revoked by the operating system. These keys are used in conjunction with others to descramble (decrypt) internal system data, as well as Nintendo's game data.		This allowed further and widespread documentation of the Nintendo Switch, especially useful for emulator development. As it bypasses nearly all of Nintendo's security measures, its existence allows exploiters to obtain copies of their Nintendo Switch console's encryption keys, which are unique to every console, before access to those keys are revoked by the operating system. These keys are used in conjunction with others to descramble (decrypt) internal system data, as well as Nintendo's game data.

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 5 */ typo

2024-03-01T04:49:59Z

Page 5: typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 29 February 2024
Line 56:		Line 56:

	====== Page 5 ======		====== Page 5 ======
	Nintendo mentions how Tears of the Kingdom leaked prior to its official ~~released~~, but this is wholly unrelated to yuzu. As yuzu is a Nintendo Switch emulator, it was able to play this game prior to release by Nintendo via its control on the Nintendo Switch eShop. However, there is no material limitation disallowing users from pirating video games on a physical Nintendo Switch console, which is required to use yuzu under intended usage. Without user-supplied files and documentation obtained outside of the program, yuzu does not allow users to pirate or play Nintendo Switch games.		Nintendo mentions how Tears of the Kingdom leaked prior to its official release, but this is wholly unrelated to yuzu. As yuzu is a Nintendo Switch emulator, it was able to play this game prior to release by Nintendo via its control on the Nintendo Switch eShop. However, there is no material limitation disallowing users from pirating video games on a physical Nintendo Switch console, which is required to use yuzu under intended usage. Without user-supplied files and documentation obtained outside of the program, yuzu does not allow users to pirate or play Nintendo Switch games.

	====== Page 6 ======		====== Page 6 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 1 */

2024-03-01T04:49:33Z

Page 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 29 February 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:
	Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team technically operates within a company.		Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team technically operates within a company.

	It's awfully annoying how Nintendo asserts what is lawful and unlawful here. They have done the same in other recent cases (a ''large'' portion of this page is copied and pasted from past suits). It isn't necessarily incorrect or wrong per-se; it is a persuasive plea for the ~~judge~~ to pinpoint exactly where Nintendo~~'s rights were violated~~ and to imply that harmful intent was ~~meditated~~. ~~Instead, it's more accurate for~~ the plaintiff~~'s to claim~~ that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where, which Nintendo does at the end of the document.		It is notable that Nintendo is a Washington company. However, Tropic Haze is located in Rhode Island, which is where this case was filed as well. In comparison to Washington, Rhode Island is not known for intellectual property rights or technology.

			It's awfully annoying how Nintendo asserts what is lawful and unlawful here. They have done the same in other recent cases (a ''large'' portion of this page is copied and pasted from past suits). It isn't necessarily incorrect or wrong per-se; it is a persuasive plea for the court to pinpoint exactly where Nintendo is citing pain and damages, and to imply that harmful intent was premeditated. I wish the plaintiff were more impartial and merely claimed that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where, which Nintendo does at the end of the document.

	====== Page 2 ======		====== Page 2 ======
	Nintendo starts to form the ~~background information~~ for its primary argument by detailing Nintendo Switch's security measures.		Nintendo starts to form the basis for its primary argument by detailing Nintendo Switch's security measures by supplying background information.

	====== Page 3 ======		====== Page 3 ======
	Nintendo doesn't cite where [https://github.com/bunnei bunnei], yuzu's lead developer, asserts that "most" users pirate encryption keys. Their later citation for bunnei's quote makes no mention of the quantity or severity of this issue. To this day, even after litigation, yuzu upholds an anti-piracy stance and enforces it strictly and swiftly. Even a web browser, especially with extensions, can be used primarily to pirate property. Yet, Microsoft or Google are not held responsible for the actions of their users by owners of intellectual property. The reason is because yuzu has limited purpose outside of what Nintendo is deeming inherently illegal use.		Nintendo doesn't cite where [https://github.com/bunnei bunnei], yuzu's lead developer, asserts that "most" users pirate encryption keys. Their later citation for bunnei's quote makes no mention of the quantity or severity of this issue. To this day, even after litigation, yuzu upholds an anti-piracy stance and enforces it strictly and swiftly. Even a web browser, especially with extensions, can be used primarily to pirate property. Yet, Microsoft or Google are not held responsible for the actions of their users by owners of intellectual property. The reason is because yuzu has limited purpose outside of what Nintendo is deeming inherently illegal use, unlike a web browser.

	====== Page 4 ======		====== Page 4 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 4 */

2024-03-01T04:42:05Z

Page 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 29 February 2024
Line 22:		Line 22:
	On its own, using Nintendo Switch games without using the Nintendo Switch may appear to resemble a conflict of interest within Nintendo. In February 2024, Nintendo filed a suit against the company that develops yuzu, Tropic Haze. The suit details and cites violations of Nintendo's copy-rights, as well as seeks damages from the theoretical harm caused by the existence of yuzu.		On its own, using Nintendo Switch games without using the Nintendo Switch may appear to resemble a conflict of interest within Nintendo. In February 2024, Nintendo filed a suit against the company that develops yuzu, Tropic Haze. The suit details and cites violations of Nintendo's copy-rights, as well as seeks damages from the theoretical harm caused by the existence of yuzu.

	[https://cdn.halcove.com/yuzu.pdf A full overview of the ~~litigation documents~~ can be found here.] Feel free to read along with my comments after opening this link in a new tab.		[https://cdn.halcove.com/yuzu.pdf A full overview of the primary court filing can be found here.] Feel free to read along with my comments after opening this link in a new tab.

	The rest of this page will have my opinions on each ~~document~~. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have information internal to either Nintendo or the yuzu team.		The rest of this page will have my opinions and documentation of each page. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have information internal to either Nintendo or the yuzu team.

	What disappoints me more than anything about this case is the likelihood what the end result of this case may be a settlement - meaning a potential lack of legal clarity.		What disappoints me more than anything about this case is the likelihood what the end result of this case may be a settlement - meaning a potential lack of legal clarity.
Line 47:		Line 47:

	====== Page 4 ======		====== Page 4 ======
	Nintendo's lawyers are seemingly focussing on the encryption keys more than the emulator itself. A few months ago, [https://gbatemp.net/threads/lockpick_rcm-payload-official-thread.532916/ LockpickRCM], software monumental to decrypting data from a Nintendo Switch, was recently eliminated from GitHub following a DMCA takedown request from Nintendo. This has no relation to yuzu itself. yuzu is merely taking data ''entirely provided by the user'', and processing the output. If Nintendo considers the keys to be an [[wikipedia:Illegal_number\|illegal number]], yuzu has no hand in providing users with said keys.		Nintendo's lawyers are seemingly focussing on the encryption keys more than the emulator itself. A few months ago, [https://gbatemp.net/threads/lockpick_rcm-payload-official-thread.532916/ LockpickRCM], software monumental to decrypting data from a Nintendo Switch, was recently eliminated from GitHub following a DMCA takedown request from Nintendo. This has no relation to yuzu itself.

	More importantly, Nintendo cites [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act], an act that protects copyright holders from tampering and unauthorised access to copyrighted works as a result of tampering with copyright protection measures. DMCA is not necessarily limited to audiovisual works, instead acting as a barrier to reverse engineering as a whole for any embedded device protected by copyright, such as the Nintendo Switch itself. The legality of reverse engineering has implications on sectors wildly outside the scope of a video game emulator, and is often associated with Right to Repair as well; RE work customarily needs to be done to ensure compatibility with repair parts that aren't distributed or manufactured by the OEM. Any kind of ruling or precedent based on Nintendo's claims here will be monumental for many sectors of my personal life, including repairs and homebrew.		More importantly, Nintendo cites [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act], an act that protects copyright holders from tampering and unauthorised access to copyrighted works as a result of tampering with copyright protection measures. DMCA is not necessarily limited to audiovisual works, instead acting as a barrier to reverse engineering as a whole for any embedded device protected by copyright, such as the Nintendo Switch itself. The legality of reverse engineering has implications on sectors wildly outside the scope of a video game emulator, and is often associated with Right to Repair as well; RE work customarily needs to be done to ensure compatibility with repair parts that aren't distributed or manufactured by the OEM. Any kind of ruling or precedent based on Nintendo's claims here will be monumental for many sectors of my personal life, including repairs and homebrew.

	Nintendo notes how yuzu is meant to operate primarily on Switch consoles. They continue to raise a point about software licensing, which is valid, but untested in court. Software, such as Nintendo Switch video games, are licensed; not ''sold'', to users. This means that video games remain Nintendo's intellectual and physical property, even after you pay them for the license to play it. When games are distributed but not protected by any sort of technological protection measure, it is legal to make backups of software. Nintendo clarifies that the case for yuzu does not fall in this scenario.		Nintendo notes how yuzu is meant to operate primarily on Switch consoles. They continue to raise a point about software licensing, which is valid, but largely untested in court. Software, such as Nintendo Switch video games, are licensed; not ''sold'', to users. This means that video games remain Nintendo's intellectual and physical property, even after you pay them for the license to play it. When games are distributed but not protected by any sort of technological protection measure, it is legal to make backups of software. Nintendo clarifies that the case for yuzu does not fall in this scenario.

	====== Page 5 ======		====== Page 5 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 1 */

2024-03-01T04:34:18Z

Page 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 29 February 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:
	Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team technically operates within a company.		Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team technically operates within a company.

	It's awfully annoying how Nintendo ~~assets~~ what is lawful and unlawful here. They have done the same in other recent cases (a ''large'' portion of this page is copied and pasted from past suits). It isn't necessarily incorrect or wrong per-se; it is a persuasive plea for the judge to pinpoint exactly where Nintendo's rights were violated and to imply that harmful intent was meditated. Instead, it's more accurate for the plaintiff's to claim that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where, which Nintendo does at the end of the document.		It's awfully annoying how Nintendo asserts what is lawful and unlawful here. They have done the same in other recent cases (a ''large'' portion of this page is copied and pasted from past suits). It isn't necessarily incorrect or wrong per-se; it is a persuasive plea for the judge to pinpoint exactly where Nintendo's rights were violated and to imply that harmful intent was meditated. Instead, it's more accurate for the plaintiff's to claim that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where, which Nintendo does at the end of the document.

	====== Page 2 ======		====== Page 2 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Overview */

2024-03-01T04:33:58Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 29 February 2024
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Instead of attacking emulators for being an unfair competitor to their consoles, or being necessarily a pirate machine, Nintendo takes a roundabout argument here.		Instead of attacking emulators for being an unfair competitor to their consoles, or being necessarily a pirate machine, Nintendo takes a roundabout argument here.

	''Regardless of'' if users purchase a game lawfully, Nintendo primarily argues that said user is still violating their copyright by extracting encryption keys [prod.keys] from the Nintendo Switch, a technological measure protecting Nintendo's intellectual property. Extracting these keys is the only possible way to dump and play back a Nintendo Switch game. Nintendo secondarily argues that all digital copies of its works that are not served directly from the Nintendo eShop are inherently illegal, as Nintendo is the only entity who is legally authorised to create copies of their work. Nintendo further argues that yuzu traffics in widespread copyright violations by directing its users to violate section 1201 of the DMCA. Finally, Nintendo argues that yuzu has no other functional purpose other than trafficking and copyright violation, given that yuzu has no functionality without the user bypassing Nintendo's TPMs, which is itself an illegal action.		''Regardless of'' if users purchase a game lawfully, Nintendo primarily argues that said user is still violating their copyright by extracting encryption keys [prod.keys] from the Nintendo Switch, a technological measure protecting Nintendo's intellectual property. Extracting these keys is the only possible way to dump and play back a Nintendo Switch game. Nintendo secondarily argues that all digital copies of its works that are not served directly from the Nintendo eShop are inherently illegal, as Nintendo is the only entity who is legally authorised to create copies of their work. Nintendo further argues that yuzu traffics in widespread copyright violations by directing its users to violate section 1201 of the DMCA en masse. Finally, Nintendo argues that yuzu has no other functional purpose other than trafficking and copyright violation, given that yuzu has no functionality without the user bypassing Nintendo's TPMs, which is itself an illegal action.

	====== Page 1 ======		====== Page 1 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Overview */

2024-03-01T04:33:39Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 29 February 2024
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Instead of attacking emulators for being an unfair competitor to their consoles, or being necessarily a pirate machine, Nintendo takes a roundabout argument here.		Instead of attacking emulators for being an unfair competitor to their consoles, or being necessarily a pirate machine, Nintendo takes a roundabout argument here.

	''Regardless of'' if users purchase a game lawfully, Nintendo primarily argues that said user is still violating their copyright by extracting encryption keys [prod.keys] from the Nintendo Switch, a technological measure protecting Nintendo's intellectual property. Extracting these keys is the only possible way to dump and play back a Nintendo Switch game. Nintendo secondarily argues that all digital copies of its works that are not served directly from the Nintendo eShop are inherently illegal, as Nintendo is the only entity who is legally authorised to create copies of their work ~~according to section 1201 of the DMCA~~. Nintendo further argues that yuzu traffics in widespread copyright violations by directing its users to ~~do so~~. Finally, Nintendo argues that yuzu has no other functional purpose other than trafficking and copyright violation, given that yuzu has no functionality without the user bypassing Nintendo's TPMs, which is itself an illegal action.		''Regardless of'' if users purchase a game lawfully, Nintendo primarily argues that said user is still violating their copyright by extracting encryption keys [prod.keys] from the Nintendo Switch, a technological measure protecting Nintendo's intellectual property. Extracting these keys is the only possible way to dump and play back a Nintendo Switch game. Nintendo secondarily argues that all digital copies of its works that are not served directly from the Nintendo eShop are inherently illegal, as Nintendo is the only entity who is legally authorised to create copies of their work. Nintendo further argues that yuzu traffics in widespread copyright violations by directing its users to violate section 1201 of the DMCA. Finally, Nintendo argues that yuzu has no other functional purpose other than trafficking and copyright violation, given that yuzu has no functionality without the user bypassing Nintendo's TPMs, which is itself an illegal action.

	====== Page 1 ======		====== Page 1 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 4 */

2024-03-01T03:56:09Z

Page 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 29 February 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:
	More importantly, Nintendo cites [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act], an act that protects copyright holders from tampering and unauthorised access to copyrighted works as a result of tampering with copyright protection measures. DMCA is not necessarily limited to audiovisual works, instead acting as a barrier to reverse engineering as a whole for any embedded device protected by copyright, such as the Nintendo Switch itself. The legality of reverse engineering has implications on sectors wildly outside the scope of a video game emulator, and is often associated with Right to Repair as well; RE work customarily needs to be done to ensure compatibility with repair parts that aren't distributed or manufactured by the OEM. Any kind of ruling or precedent based on Nintendo's claims here will be monumental for many sectors of my personal life, including repairs and homebrew.		More importantly, Nintendo cites [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act], an act that protects copyright holders from tampering and unauthorised access to copyrighted works as a result of tampering with copyright protection measures. DMCA is not necessarily limited to audiovisual works, instead acting as a barrier to reverse engineering as a whole for any embedded device protected by copyright, such as the Nintendo Switch itself. The legality of reverse engineering has implications on sectors wildly outside the scope of a video game emulator, and is often associated with Right to Repair as well; RE work customarily needs to be done to ensure compatibility with repair parts that aren't distributed or manufactured by the OEM. Any kind of ruling or precedent based on Nintendo's claims here will be monumental for many sectors of my personal life, including repairs and homebrew.

	Nintendo notes how yuzu is meant to operate primarily on Switch consoles. They continue to raise a point about software licensing, which is valid, but untested in court. Software, such as Nintendo Switch video games, are licensed; not ''sold'', to users. This means that video games remain Nintendo's intellectual and physical property, even after you pay them for the license to play it. When games are distributed but not protected by any sort of technological protection measure, it is legal to make backups of software. ~~However, license agreements, such as~~ Nintendo~~'s license agreement~~ that ~~disallows users from making backup copies, are now to be tested in court. License agreements are more often upheld in favor of~~ the ~~licensor, but~~ not ~~always~~.		Nintendo notes how yuzu is meant to operate primarily on Switch consoles. They continue to raise a point about software licensing, which is valid, but untested in court. Software, such as Nintendo Switch video games, are licensed; not ''sold'', to users. This means that video games remain Nintendo's intellectual and physical property, even after you pay them for the license to play it. When games are distributed but not protected by any sort of technological protection measure, it is legal to make backups of software. Nintendo clarifies that the case for yuzu does not fall in this scenario.

	====== Page 5 ======		====== Page 5 ======
Line 59:		Line 59:
	Piracy and cheating are generally the only things Nintendo has been known to ban for on the Nintendo Switch; they explicitly do not ban for the presence of custom firmware alone. It is interesting to see them mention their intent to protect the Nintendo ecosystem from these two specific actions in writing, for the first time.		Piracy and cheating are generally the only things Nintendo has been known to ban for on the Nintendo Switch; they explicitly do not ban for the presence of custom firmware alone. It is interesting to see them mention their intent to protect the Nintendo ecosystem from these two specific actions in writing, for the first time.

	Nintendo specifies how yuzu aids users in "unlawfully decrypting" and playing Nintendo software. The former sentence is outside of standard and popular defenses on the side of emulation; it is fully lawful to create backup copies of software. However, if one must break a TPM to back up the game software, which is illegal under current law, things become dicey. I don't know if this prong of the DMCA has been tested in court. Multiple sentences in this page confirm unlawful decryption is what Nintendo is basing their suit off of.		Nintendo specifies how yuzu aids users in "unlawfully decrypting" and playing Nintendo software.

	~~This could be a grave mistake on Nintendo's part, and they're basing the conclusion on the case on an untested prong of United States copyright law.~~		Nintendo goes on to cite where it seeks restitution with 28 USC 1331, 1338, and 17 USC 106/501/1201/1203, dealing with anti-tamper of copyright-protected systems.

	Nintendo goes on to cite where it seeks restitution with 28 USC 1331, 1338~~, which are~~, and 17 USC 106/501/1201/1203, dealing with anti-tamper of copyright-protected systems.

	====== Page 7 - 8 ======		====== Page 7 - 8 ======

Ha1vorsen at 03:51, 1 March 2024

2024-03-01T03:51:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 29 February 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:

	The rest of this page will have my opinions on each document. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have information internal to either Nintendo or the yuzu team.		The rest of this page will have my opinions on each document. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have information internal to either Nintendo or the yuzu team.

			What disappoints me more than anything about this case is the likelihood what the end result of this case may be a settlement - meaning a potential lack of legal clarity.

			It's a resounding reminder that written law does not govern our society, but corporations who can pay an infinite amount of legal fees do.

			=== Overview ===
			Instead of attacking emulators for being an unfair competitor to their consoles, or being necessarily a pirate machine, Nintendo takes a roundabout argument here.

			''Regardless of'' if users purchase a game lawfully, Nintendo primarily argues that said user is still violating their copyright by extracting encryption keys [prod.keys] from the Nintendo Switch, a technological measure protecting Nintendo's intellectual property. Extracting these keys is the only possible way to dump and play back a Nintendo Switch game. Nintendo secondarily argues that all digital copies of its works that are not served directly from the Nintendo eShop are inherently illegal, as Nintendo is the only entity who is legally authorised to create copies of their work according to section 1201 of the DMCA. Nintendo further argues that yuzu traffics in widespread copyright violations by directing its users to do so. Finally, Nintendo argues that yuzu has no other functional purpose other than trafficking and copyright violation, given that yuzu has no functionality without the user bypassing Nintendo's TPMs, which is itself an illegal action.

	====== Page 1 ======		====== Page 1 ======
	Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team ~~is under~~ a company~~, whereas I was under the impression that it was an unstructured organisation with freelance participants on GitHub, Discord, and Patreon~~.		Tropic Haze is the name of the LLC that develops yuzu. It is new to me that yuzu's development team technically operates within a company.

	It's awfully annoying how Nintendo assets what is lawful and unlawful; in ~~litigation, whether or not something~~ is ~~illegal~~ or ~~not~~ is ~~not up~~ for the ~~plaintiffs~~ to '~~'assert'' without immediately citing where their~~ rights were violated. Instead, it's more accurate for the plaintiff's to claim that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where.		It's awfully annoying how Nintendo assets what is lawful and unlawful here. They have done the same in other recent cases (a ''large'' portion of this page is copied and pasted from past suits). It isn't necessarily incorrect or wrong per-se; it is a persuasive plea for the judge to pinpoint exactly where Nintendo's rights were violated and to imply that harmful intent was meditated. Instead, it's more accurate for the plaintiff's to claim that their rights were violated by the defendant, and proceeding to show examples of where, which Nintendo does at the end of the document.

	====== Page 2 ======		====== Page 2 ======
	~~For me, it's a bit curious to see~~ Nintendo ~~refer~~ to the ~~encryption key dump with the community name "prod.keys"~~. ~~Does this collection of keys have an official name in-house? Does Nintendo organise console-unique keys on a more granular scale instead?~~		Nintendo starts to form the background information for its primary argument by detailing Nintendo Switch's security measures.

	====== Page 3 ======		====== Page 3 ======
	Nintendo doesn't cite where [https://github.com/bunnei ~~Bunnei~~], yuzu's lead developer, asserts that "most" users pirate encryption keys. Their later citation for ~~Bunnei~~'s quote makes no mention of the quantity or severity of this issue~~. In addition, it is odd that Nintendo is choosing to hold yuzu directly responsible irresponsibility on the user's end, despite efforts being put in place to prevent and deter piracy on yuzu's end~~. To this day, even after litigation, yuzu upholds an anti-piracy stance and enforces it strictly and swiftly. Even a web browser, especially with extensions, can be used primarily to pirate property. Yet, Microsoft or Google are not held responsible for the actions of their users by owners of intellectual property.		Nintendo doesn't cite where [https://github.com/bunnei bunnei], yuzu's lead developer, asserts that "most" users pirate encryption keys. Their later citation for bunnei's quote makes no mention of the quantity or severity of this issue. To this day, even after litigation, yuzu upholds an anti-piracy stance and enforces it strictly and swiftly. Even a web browser, especially with extensions, can be used primarily to pirate property. Yet, Microsoft or Google are not held responsible for the actions of their users by owners of intellectual property. The reason is because yuzu has limited purpose outside of what Nintendo is deeming inherently illegal use.

	====== Page 4 ======		====== Page 4 ======

Ha1vorsen: /* Page 5 */

2024-02-29T00:32:44Z

Page 5

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 As seen in [[Why The Switch Still Excites]], Nintendo's role as a console manufacturer includes a responsibility to create an ecosystem for developers to create and publish video games. Part of this responsibility includes ensuring that third-party developers can trust Nintendo's platforms, like the Nintendo Switch, to uphold the developer's copyright, by ensuring that theft of their intellectual property does not occur.
-From the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, Nintendo can be seen as the sole saviour of the video game market, previously rife with bootlegged software distribution and lackluster financial security. By moderating the ecosystem and enabling a common ground for consumers to play their games, eliminating the necessity for proprietary hardware for individual games, and implementing technological protection measures to prevent intellectual property theft, developers flocked to Nintendo as a video game platform and publisher. Nintendo solely decides which games are playable on their console via a series of hardware and software protections, protecting developers from the copying and distribution of bootlegged software - unlike any console that came before it. Nintendo originated as a playing card company from the 1800s, but video games are their legacy, especially ensuring their success as a company in the later years of its formation. Nintendo's success is a direct result of combating software pirates, and it should come as no surprise that Nintendo wants to protect itself from the consequences that led to the market original demise.
+From the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, Nintendo can be seen as the sole saviour of the video game market, previously rife with bootlegged software distribution and lackluster financial security. By moderating the ecosystem and enabling a common ground for consumers to play their games, eliminating the necessity for proprietary hardware for individual games, and implementing technological protection measures (TPMs) to prevent intellectual property theft, developers flocked to Nintendo as a video game platform and publisher. Nintendo solely decides which games are playable on their console via a series of hardware and software protections, protecting developers from the copying and distribution of bootlegged software - unlike any console that came before it. Nintendo originated as a playing card company from the 1800s, but video games are their legacy, especially ensuring their success as a company in the later years of its formation. Nintendo's success is a direct result of combating software pirates, and it should come as no surprise that Nintendo wants to protect itself from the consequences that led to the market original demise.
 Games released and published by Nintendo currently are protected with numerous copyright protection measures to this day. The Nintendo Switch's operating, Horizon, is an example of flagship security-grade software, and Nintendo's most expansive and technically complicated OS. For example, to date, Horizon publicly has zero exploitable software vulnerabilities that enable high-severity attacks, such as kernel or TrustZone takeover, both of which can lead to the possibility of software piracy. Nintendo invests heavily in the security of its platform, and is widely known to use its position in the industry to deter and set examples for those who threaten it.
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ====== Page 5 ======
+#