Kalakshar US

Nintendo has filed a lawsuit against the creators of a popular Switch emulator called Yuzu, which gives users a way to play games developed for the platform on their PCs and Android devices. In the lawsuit shared by Game File’s Stephen Totilo, the company argued that Yuzu violates the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

Nintendo explained that it protects its games with encryption and other security features meant to prevent people from playing pirated copies. Yuzu has the capability to defeat those security measures and to decrypt Nintendo games. “[W]ithout Yuzu’s decryption of Nintendo’s encryption, unauthorized copies of games could not be played on PCs or Android devices,” the company wrote in its complaint. 

It’s illegal to “circumvent technological measures put into place by copyright owners to protect against unlawful access to and copying of copyrighted works” under the DMCA, Nintendo continued. And distributing “software primarily designed to circumvent technological measures” also constitutes unlawful trafficking. The defendants are, thus, “facilitating piracy at a colossal scale,” the lawsuit argued. This case could set a precedent for future lawsuits against emulators, which aren’t illegal in and of them themselves. As Ars Technica notes, Nintendo’s arguments are calling their very nature unlawful. 

To illustrate how much Yuzu has affected its business, Nintendo revealed in its complaint that The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom was illegally distributed a week and a half before its official release. It was apparently downloaded over a million times from pirated websites, which specifically noted that people can play the game file through Yuzu. The company also mentioned that Yuzu’s creators are making money from their emulator. They’re getting around $30,000 a month from their Patreon supporters and have earned around $50,000 from the paid version of their software on Google Play, so far. 

Nintendo is asking the court to stop Yuzu’s creators from promoting and distributing the software. It’s also asking for an unspecified amount in “equitable relief and damages.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nintendo-lawsuit-accuses-switch-emulator-creators-of-piracy-at-a-colossal-scale-093157736.html?src=rss 

Amazon is being sued by the writer of the original 1989 Patrick Swayze version of the film Road House over alleged copyright infringement in the movie’s remake, The Los Angeles Times has reported. Screenwriter R. Lance Hill accuses Amazon and MGM Studios of using AI to clone actors’ voices in the new production in order to finish it before the copyright expired. 

Hill said he filed a petition with the US Copyright Office in November 2021 to reclaim the rights to his original screenplay, which forms the basis of the new film. At that point, the rights were owned by Amazon Studios, as part of its acquisition of MGM, but were set to expire in November 2023. Hill alleges that once that happened, the rights would revert back to him. 

According to the lawsuit, Amazon Studios rushed ahead with the project anyway in order to finish it before the copyright deadline. Since it was stymied by the actor’s strike, Hill alleges Amazon used AI to “replicate the voices” of the actors who worked in the 2024 remake. Such use violated the terms of the deal struck between the union and major studios including Amazon. 

The claim is complicated by the fact that Hill signed a “work-made-for-hire” deal with the original producer, United Artists. That effectively means that the studio hiring the writer would be both the owner and copyright holder of the work. Hill, however, dismissed that as “boilerplate” typically used in contracts. 

The lawsuit seeks to block the release of the film, set to bow at SXSW on March 8th before (controversially) heading direct to streaming on Prime Video on March 21. 

Amazon denies the claims, with a spokesperson telling The Verge that “the studio expressly instructed the filmmakers to NOT use AI in this movie.” It added that if AI was utilized, it was only done in early versions of the films. Later on, filmmakers were told to remove any “AI or non-SAG AFTRA actors” for the final version. It added that other allegations are “categorically false” and that it believes its copyright on the original Road House has yet to expire. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/amazon-accused-of-using-ai-to-replicate-the-voices-of-actors-in-road-house-remake-054408057.html?src=rss 

Google has been quietly striking deals with some publishers to use new generative AI tools to publish stories, according to a report in Adweek. The deals, reportedly worth tens of thousands of dollars a year, are apparently part of the Google News Initiative (GNI), a six-year-old program that funds media literacy projects, fact-checking tools, and other resources for newsrooms. But the move into generative AI publishing tools would be a new, and likely controversial, step for the company.

According to Adweek, the program is currently targeting a “handful” of smaller publishers. “The beta tools let under-resourced publishers create aggregated content more efficiently by indexing recently published reports generated by other organizations, like government agencies and neighboring news outlets, and then summarizing and publishing them as a new article,” Adweek reports.

It’s not clear exactly how much publishers are being paid under the arrangement, though Adweek says it’s a “five-figure sum” per year. In exchange, media organizations reportedly agree to publish at least three articles a day, one weekly newsletter and one monthly marketing campaign using the tools.

Of note, publishers in the program are apparently not required to disclose their use of AI, nor are the aggregated websites informed that their content is being used to create AI-written stories on other sites. The AI-generated copy reportedly uses a color-coded system to indicate the reliability of each section of text to help human editors review the content before publishing.

Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement to Adweek the company said it was “in the early stages of exploring ideas to potentially provide AI-enabled tools to help journalists with their work.” The spokesperson added that the AI tools “are not intended to, and cannot, replace the essential role journalists have in reporting, creating and fact-checking their articles.”

It’s not clear what Google is getting out of the arrangement, though it wouldn’t be the first tech company to pay newsrooms to use proprietary tools. The arrangement bears some similarities to the deals Facebook once struck with publishers to create live video content in 2016. The social media company made headlines as it paid publishers millions of dollars to juice its nascent video platform and dozens of media outlets opted to “pivot to video” as a result.

Those deals later evaporated after Facebook discovered it had wildly miscalculated the number of views such content was getting. The social network ended its live video deals soon after and has since tweaked its algorithm to recommend less news content. The media industry’s “pivot to video” cost hundreds of journalists their jobs, by some estimates.

While the GNI program appears to be much smaller than what Facebook attempted nearly a decade ago with live video, it will likely raise fresh scrutiny over the use of generative AI tools by publishers. Publications like CNET and Sports Illustrated have been widely criticized for attempting to pass off AI-authored articles as written by human staffers.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-is-reportedly-paying-publishers-thousands-of-dollars-to-use-its-ai-to-write-stories-215943624.html?src=rss