I wonder why they settled, I thought emulators were protected as long as they don’t contain any copyrighted stuff. Was it because they circumvented DRM?
The case Nintendo was making, as I understand it, was that their site provided pretty clear links to sources where you could circumvent encryption, even though they weren’t doing it themselves.
This is effectively how Kakao argued against Tachiyomi: they provided extensions to websites where pirated manga could be hosted, even if they weren’t running the sites themselves. They facilitated piracy, even if they didn’t host any pirated content.
I have a profound respect for how RPCS3 has been able to stay above water. They police the community heavily, AND they have a list of games that are persona non grata to even talk about, let alone ask how to get them to work.
Because they were engaged in code theft, piracy and Nintendo had them dead to rights. Leaked chats and drive folders showed they were actively pirating games, paywalling questionable content and using the Switch SDK. Clean room emulation implementations are completely legal. Their methods and behavior were not.
I’d imagine because they charged for access to piracy-specific functions of the tool and knew they couldn’t argue a case.
It was a dumb move for them to add functionality for unreleased games in the first place, and an even worse move to charge money for it. It makes it a lot harder to convince a court that your tool is for backup/archival purposes only, when you have features that could only work with pirated materials.
I wonder why they settled, I thought emulators were protected as long as they don’t contain any copyrighted stuff. Was it because they circumvented DRM?
The case Nintendo was making, as I understand it, was that their site provided pretty clear links to sources where you could circumvent encryption, even though they weren’t doing it themselves.
This is effectively how Kakao argued against Tachiyomi: they provided extensions to websites where pirated manga could be hosted, even if they weren’t running the sites themselves. They facilitated piracy, even if they didn’t host any pirated content.
I have a profound respect for how RPCS3 has been able to stay above water. They police the community heavily, AND they have a list of games that are persona non grata to even talk about, let alone ask how to get them to work.
Because they were engaged in code theft, piracy and Nintendo had them dead to rights. Leaked chats and drive folders showed they were actively pirating games, paywalling questionable content and using the Switch SDK. Clean room emulation implementations are completely legal. Their methods and behavior were not.
I’d imagine because they charged for access to piracy-specific functions of the tool and knew they couldn’t argue a case.
It was a dumb move for them to add functionality for unreleased games in the first place, and an even worse move to charge money for it. It makes it a lot harder to convince a court that your tool is for backup/archival purposes only, when you have features that could only work with pirated materials.