this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
419 points (98.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
201 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It was a settlement. The devs decided, for reasons that are not public, that it would be easier to just pay Nintendo some money and take down the emulator than to fight them in court. It's very possible (even likely) that they figured it would be more expensive to fight Nintendo's lawyers than to just pay a fixed amount up front.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's quite often the case with thee issues - it's simply a finance game by the player with the deep pockets - they can afford to effectively bankrupt a smaller player who may have done nothing wrong.

[–] eardon@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

There should be penalties for that.

"Yeah, we know we're wrong but we're just going to litigate as much as possible to drain our adversary's pockets."

That kind of thing should warrant its own criminal case.

Also, in the future, emulation devs really shouldn't reveal their identity.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

I wonder if 5heybwouldnt have started charging if Nintendo would have done anything.