They did multiple things illegally, yet you want to still believe that they did this one specific thing correct…? While everything else they did wasnt…? What have they done correct to make you believe that this was also done “by the book”…?
The key that they were caught with (the one they would have given someone to clean room with) was illegally acquired. So sure they may have clean roomed it, but they acquired the original illegally, which means the software itself, before everything else, wasn’t done correctly as well. So they couldn’t use that defense like other lawsuits, so that’s why they settled out of court before discovery, since discovery would have made it far worse for them and other developers.
Where is the proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key? Actually. Even if they acquired a key without homebrew, it still doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement, that only comes into play if they were publicly distributing an illegally acquired key. Which you’ve yet to provide any evidence of. Again, provide literally any screenshots of them disturbing an illegally acquired key.
I’m asking for proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key and were illegally distributing said key. All sources I’ve found state that the Yuzu devs used “prod.keys” obtained from legitimate Switch hardware for internal use and didn’t publicly distribute any said keys. The said many sources even state that they provided directions on how to obtain your own key which isn’t illegal and is in favor of them not distributing keys. This is also backed by the Yuzu source code persevered in the previously provided mirror and Yuzu website preserved here and by wayback machine.
Your failer to provide literally any source at all points to you being a biased corrupt source.
Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
We’ve been over this already. Homebrew tools are completely legal under section 107.
Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
No they didn’t, they provided links to 3rd party homebrew tools which in themselves are again protected by section 107.
This is entirely irrelevant to your claim that they provided encryption keys.
The key they used was acquired illegally,
Proof?
they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally,
No, they again provided a guide on how to homebrew your own console and dump your own key legally. Which yet again is covered by section 107.
they tested with illegal Roms,
Again, Proof?
they profited from it,
No. They profited from beta releases of their legal emulation software, which is legal, there’s many legal for profit emulators that exists and infact most of the precedence set for emulators are set by for-profit emulators, which yet again are protected under section 107.
etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
I’m not ignoring anything, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide proof, multiple times now.
That’s IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial… they profited…. It also says personal use…… It also says certain cases…. which they certainly didn’t fall under!
personal, non-commercial use has
considered a lawful fair use in certain
You just shot your own foot again with your own source, but you’re probably not going to comprehend this either, and I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment now since youve moved to insulting to try and make your asinine point, bye!
They did multiple things illegally, yet you want to still believe that they did this one specific thing correct…? While everything else they did wasnt…? What have they done correct to make you believe that this was also done “by the book”…?
The key that they were caught with (the one they would have given someone to clean room with) was illegally acquired. So sure they may have clean roomed it, but they acquired the original illegally, which means the software itself, before everything else, wasn’t done correctly as well. So they couldn’t use that defense like other lawsuits, so that’s why they settled out of court before discovery, since discovery would have made it far worse for them and other developers.
They fucked up, but sure defend them I guess?
Where is the proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key? Actually. Even if they acquired a key without homebrew, it still doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement, that only comes into play if they were publicly distributing an illegally acquired key. Which you’ve yet to provide any evidence of. Again, provide literally any screenshots of them disturbing an illegally acquired key.
And again the goalposts get moved.
Why are you blindly defending Yuzu who have done every other step of this illegally and wrong? It’s honestly quite sad.
Nintendo is scum, but that doesn’t mean Yuzu also isn’t in the wrong, or does this possibility not exist here….?
I’m asking for proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key and were illegally distributing said key. All sources I’ve found state that the Yuzu devs used “prod.keys” obtained from legitimate Switch hardware for internal use and didn’t publicly distribute any said keys. The said many sources even state that they provided directions on how to obtain your own key which isn’t illegal and is in favor of them not distributing keys. This is also backed by the Yuzu source code persevered in the previously provided mirror and Yuzu website preserved here and by wayback machine.
Your failer to provide literally any source at all points to you being a biased corrupt source.
https://www.wired.com/story/nintendo-yuzu-emulator-lawsuit-piracy/
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/how-strong-is-nintendos-legal-case-against-switch-emulator-yuzu/
Read your own links dude… they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different places…
Anyways
They distributed tools…. Which is what you just claimed they didn’t do, I appreciate you providing the source that shoots your own foot though.
The key they used was acquired illegally, they provided means for you to acquire your own illegally, they tested with illegal Roms, they profited from it, etc you’re ignoring all of these in favor of what…? Exactly…? That it doesn’t somehow matter…? What…?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense you’re claiming they can use, all the evidence and their own website contradicts what they claimed they stood for. And here you are, evidence provided by you, and still shouting they didn’t do it, yet your source says they did? Give your head a shake lmfao.
We’ve been over this already. Homebrew tools are completely legal under section 107.
No they didn’t, they provided links to 3rd party homebrew tools which in themselves are again protected by section 107.
This is entirely irrelevant to your claim that they provided encryption keys.
Proof?
No, they again provided a guide on how to homebrew your own console and dump your own key legally. Which yet again is covered by section 107.
Again, Proof?
No. They profited from beta releases of their legal emulation software, which is legal, there’s many legal for profit emulators that exists and infact most of the precedence set for emulators are set by for-profit emulators, which yet again are protected under section 107.
I’m not ignoring anything, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide proof, multiple times now.
That’s IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial… they profited…. It also says personal use…… It also says certain cases…. which they certainly didn’t fall under!
You just shot your own foot again with your own source, but you’re probably not going to comprehend this either, and I’m not even going to address the rest of your comment now since youve moved to insulting to try and make your asinine point, bye!
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Please, get to a lawyer.
Bleem vs. Sony 2001 disproves your argument entirely and is literally one of the precedence set for section 107.
https://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/psx/bleem.html
https://www.eurogamer.net/the-history-of-bleem
https://www.gtplanet.net/bleem-made-gran-turismo-2-better-driving-simulator/