You're viewing part of a thread.
Which they didnât do since their ripped key was in a google drive (it was someone elseâs key) and they had folders full of illegal romsâŠ.
Again, provide proof or kindly STFU.
You would also need to know how decode and use that key, itâs not just taking a key and suddenly you have a working emulator, you canât be serious about this are youâŠ?
Please learn how the fuck clean room design reverse engineering works. It's a 2 team operation were one team uses reverse engineering methods to write spec documentation without any code at all, then another team without access to copyright content using the that spec documentation to build out the actual code. This again is already deamed independent creation under section 107.
Thatâs not how you make an emulator and claim game preservation, sorry. Yuzu got sued and didnât even make it to discovery, since they had nothing to stand onâŠ. Since they had an illegal bios key and game roms.
Yet again. Provide proof.
They had TOTK working on their emulator before the game released. How did they get they key, and test and update their emulator with legally acquired clean room techniques�
Sure, if you ignore the mountain of evidence, they did things kinda right. The proof is right there if you donât just choose to ignore it since it doesnât align with your biasâŠ.
And everything is deleted and scrubbed, the only thing youâll find is posts and articles talking about it now.
You fundamentally misunderstand how emulators work. Emulators are the recreation of the actual spec of the hardware itself in software. They do not need some unique key for TOTK to work as the hardware itself is what's being emulated not some encryption key pulled of the hardware. All the key does is decode the ROMs encryption so it can be run by the hardware and inturn the emulator that's mimicking the hardware. Literally any encryption key dumped from any homebrew'd switch can decode TOTK. Not once did Yuzu access TOTK ROMs files, more over the TOTK ROMs was leaked by a 3rd party with no connection to Yuzu.
They did multiple things illegally, yet you want to still believe that they did this one specific thing correctâŠ? While everything else they did wasntâŠ? What have they done correct to make you believe that this was also done âby the bookââŠ?
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, wasnât done correctly as well. So they couldnât use that defense like other lawsuits, so thatâs 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? Itâs honestly quite sad.
Nintendo is scum, but that doesnât mean Yuzu also isnât in the wrong, or does this possibility not exist hereâŠ.?
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/
Read your own links dude⊠they are identical as well? Thats weird for being two different placesâŠ
Anyways
That guide also includes links to a number of external tools that directly break console and/or game encryption techniques.
They distributed toolsâŠ. Which is what you just claimed they didnât 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 youâre ignoring all of these in favor of whatâŠ? ExactlyâŠ? That it doesnât somehow matterâŠ? WhatâŠ?
Again, what have they done RIGHT to be able to claim the defense youâre 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 didnât 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 toolsâŠ. Which is what you just claimed they didnât 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 youâre ignoring all of these in favor of whatâŠ? ExactlyâŠ? That it doesnât somehow matterâŠ? WhatâŠ?
I'm not ignoring anything, you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you to provide proof, multiple times now.
Thatâs IF they did that, and it says in non-commercial⊠they profitedâŠ. It also says personal useâŠ.. It also says certain casesâŠ. which they certainly didnât 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 youâre probably not going to comprehend this either, and Iâm 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 your dumb ass to a lawyer.
Bleem vs. Sony 2001 disproves your argument entirely and is literally one of the precedence set for section 107. Also, stop with the foot fetish.
https://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/psx/bleem.html
Bleem was a promising commercial Playstation emulator which first appeared in 1999. Bleem won the lawsuits launched against it by Sony.
https://www.eurogamer.net/the-history-of-bleem
https://www.gtplanet.net/bleem-made-gran-turismo-2-better-driving-simulator/