I'm not familiar with this case, but [this page][0] seems to be more focused on the use of screenshots rather than the emulator software itself? Did this set a precedent?
Another emulation lawsuit, Sony v Connectix, happened the previous year. In that case the concepts of emulation were found to be legal but Connectix was hit for copyright infringement of the Playstation's BIOS.
Bleem used HLE to avoid needing a copyrighted BIOS image. Sony complained to the courts, but Bleem successfully defended all counts using the Connectix precedent.
You're looking at the appeal - in appeal, the only leg Sony had left to stand on was the use of screenshots of copyrighted games, but the court determined it to be fair use.
So the precedent comes from looking at a series of cases around this time, but Sony v Bleem is commonly used as a handwaving reference to the whole saga. It's the first major time this defense was successfully used in court.
For an interesting comparison, the GPLv2 was written in 1991 but technically wasn't tested in a US court until 2014.
Why would you see this emulator in particular getting DMCAed?
There's not really good precedent for this that I'm aware of - Nintendo did DMCA the repo for a GBA emulator a while ago, but it came with Nintendo game ROMs in the browser.
> Why would you see this emulator in particular getting DMCAed?
Nothing in particular, I was thinking about it from the other end. Seeing as the Switch is Nintendo's latest gen console I'd say it's different to something like Dolphin in terms of how much it might bother Nintendo.
That plus the fact that when you want something off the internet nowadays a DMCA is typically the legal path, makes me think that Nintendo would love to find something to DMCA the repository for.
Whether there's anything to be DMCA'd I can't say (and from the replies I see probably not).
Copyright infringement is a civil offense, but there's none here.