[inyorgroove]

From my podcast law degree, in civil action like this yes. To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

[hn_acker]

> To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply.

Not in copyright cases. You have to show harm for actual damages, but copyright has statutory damages: you only need to demonstrate a violation of the law (the copyright statutes) for damages [1]:

> In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights.[35] However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees.[48] (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.)

Statutory damages do not need to correspond to actual damages [2]:

> The charges allow copyright holders, who succeed with claims of infringement, to receive an amount of compensation per work (as opposed to compensation for losses, an account of profits or damages per infringing copy). Statutory damages can in some cases be significantly more than the actual damages suffered by the rightsholder or the profits of the infringer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Registration

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyrigh...

[archontes]

Are you aware of any precedent that "enabling" copyright infringement is tantamount to copyright infringement?

Copyright obviously protects against the retransmittal of the copyrighted work. If Yuzu hasn't done that, it isn't guilty of copyright infringement. Instead, Nintendo is arguing that if Yuzu didn't exist, fewer people would have committed copyright infringement. That in itself is not a copyright claim.