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.
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Too bad. Here’s more :
Bleem, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2000)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Connectix Corporation (2000)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992)
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. (1992)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Cyberhead (2002)
Literally all of these set the precedents protected by section 107.
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Too bad. Here’s more :
Bleem, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2000)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Connectix Corporation (2000)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992)
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. (1992)
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Cyberhead (2002)
Literally all of these set the precedents protected by section 107.
Removed by mod