Comment by realusername
2 years ago
> we all saw how that went with yuzu.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been any judgement but a private settlement has been made.
It's true that you can't really defend your rights against a corporation as big as Nintendo though.
A private settlement of paying Nintendo $2.4M. How is that not a perfect example of "we all saw how that went"?
A lot of these settlements involve announcing a fake value of money to be paid as part of the agreement, then agreeing to waive the settlement value if some undisclosed imposed contractual obligations are met.
Arguably this is likely the case with this situation (and nintendo benefits by our not knowing for sure), not that being forced into such an agreement with no trial is not worrisome in itself.
The first part of the sentence is "the DMCA is strongly in favor of copyright holders". Well no that's my point, the DMCA hasn't been used in this case. Nobody knows if the DMCA would have been enough to take down Yuzu because that hasn't been judged.
If you read the lawsuit, Nintendo cited the DMCA laws regarding the breaking of "technological protection measures" extensively. The DMCA is broader than just takedowns.
Even if Yuzu succeeded in overturning the takedown, Nintendo could prevail in the court of law on the merits of the DMCA. Overturning a takedown is easy - just file a counter notice. Expect to be seen in court if you do that, though.
Edit: For the "On the technological protection measures, it hasn't been judged," look at Apple vs Psystar. A case where breaking TPMs came up, which actually was fought to the point of where a SCOTUS appeal was the last step remaining. Psystar was annihilated - and let me tell you, emulating macOS on non-Mac hardware sounds a lot like emulating Video Games on non-Nintendo hardware.
2 replies →
I was referring to the DMCA takedown process, which is what Nintendo expressly used in this example. The actual lawsuit relies on elements of the DMCA for the case but they didn’t use the takedown procedure.