This also includes ceasing development and destroying their copies of the code.
The GitHub repo page for Yuzu now returns a 404, as well. In addition, the repo for the Citra 3DS emulator was also taken down.
As of at least 23:30 UTC, Yuzu’s website and Citra’s website have been replaced with a statement about their discontinuation.
Other sources found by @Daughter3546@lemmy.world:
- https://gbatemp.net/threads/yuzu-emulator-shutting-down-paying-nintendo-2-4-million-in-lawsuit-settlement.650039/
- https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendos-yuzu-lawsuit-puts-emulation-in-the-spotlight-opinion
- https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-says-tears-of-the-kingdom-was-pirated-1-million-times-pre-release-in-lawsuit-against-emulator-creator
There is also an active Reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1b6gtb5/
Because you’re using the system outside of its intended purpose to break the law. That’s basically the definition of hacking.
I’m not sure why it being illegal to sell a tool to do that is a hard concept to grasp for so many people.
I’m not against emulation or pirating, but no shit this was going to happen eventually.
Okay, so no, it’s not hacking. It doesn’t fall under hacking laws. It’s not illegal to sell hacking tools. Basically, everything you said is wrong.
In this case, it’s all about copyright and the DMCA, which made it illegal to break the copyright protection systems companies put in place or to make or distribute tools to break copyright protection systems.
So, nothing to do will selling things or hacking. Everything to do with copyright and draconian dot come era laws.
Circumventing copyright protections by using encryption keys in an unauthorized manner is hacking.
This case might not be explicitly about hacking, but profiting off tools that use IP to circumvent protections is illegal.
It’s not hacking. Sorry.
The electronic key I purchased and collected from my own hardware is “hacking” because Nintendo’s doesn’t intend it? Maybe the legality of selling a tool to get the key is a hard concept to grasp because the premise is objectionable. If a Switch makes a good doorstop then it will be doing it’s “intended purpose” if that’s what I intend for my property.
I’m against companies having unjust control over our own computing.
You might own the hardware, but you don’t own the rights to the OS that runs on it. The encryption key is part of that software.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. If I was openly selling a tool to break the activation lock on Windows, I could expect the same result.
deleted by creator
That’s a ridiculous idea. If I buy a computer with an OS that has an encryption key to protect the hard drive, and later I need that key to remove my data to another system, I have an entirely reasonable expectation that I’m allowed to do so, regardless of how much the computer manufacturer doesn’t want me to.