Any platform that restricts how and what I can run in it has inherently less value to me. This is why I mostrly avoided consoles all my life.
The only console I bought was the original Wii. The games were extremely expensive, and they disabled all the services that made the console useful after a few years (weather channel, news channel, store).
Fortunately I added a few SNES, PCEngine, Genesis/Megadrive and Gamecube emulators otherwise I would now have a very pretty white doorstop.
Switch - play w/ kids; Smash has been amazing for this
Steam Deck - not a console, but I use it as one; got it to play games in bed
I play most games on PC because I’m just not as interested in exclusives anymore, except maybe Zelda games, and with BOTW and TOTK, I’m less interested in those (they lost the formula I like).
I’ll probably get the Switch 2 eventually, but I’ll wait until there’s a game I really want (say, ALttP remake or something), my kids break our OLED Switch, or there’s an OLED Switch 2 with better battery life.
This whole article is dumb because this is the same as it ever was with Switch 1. Resold switches could be banned from online play, how is this unique to the Switch 2? If you're going to buy used, go for a reputable source.
it can suspend all kinds of services on your console, up to and including bricking it completely.
No, just online services.
Xbox and PlayStation have the same terms & conditions. Why is Nintendo being singled out?
Xbox:
You will not attempt to defeat or circumvent any Xbox Console, Kinect Sensor or Authorised Accessory technical limitation, security or anti-piracy system. If You do, Your Xbox Console, Kinect Sensor or Authorised Accessory may stop working permanently at that time or after a later Xbox Software update.
The second part simply isn’t true. Look at the ToS wording (US version). Nintendo added a clause specific to the device’s functioning, not only to online services.
“This shitty company has been shitty for 20 years, why do we care” is one of the most fanboi, dickriding responses possible. Why are you riding for Nintendo so hard given their shitty anti-consumer practices?
Agreed. Permanent hardware bans have been a thing since the PS3/360 era.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that they can unilaterally disable hardware you purchased (although I certainly understand the reasoning wrt cheaters and pirates) but the author here is acting like the idea is some completely new scheme from the diabolical industry villains du jour.
Even if that is legal (it isnt), but it will be circumvention of encryption at worst and recreation of protected algorithms, code and keys in a non-nintendo product at best ( and thats before talking about game cartridge content ).
Last i checked that is still illegal hehe
I am not a lawyer, but I have talked to lawyers about this before and their answer was basically:
The owner of a copy of a game or other computer software may “make or authorize the making of another copy.” Legally speaking, the law does not require the person who owns the copy to personally make the backup copy, nor does it specify that the backup copy be made only from the copy owned.
This is important because on Nintendo’s own website they state the following:
Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not […] it is illegal to download […] a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
What Nintendo is saying here is outright wrong. A person who only has only temporary possession of a game (such as rental or borrowing) gains no rights under 17 USC 117, and may not download a copy without separate permission, which obviously Nintendo would never grant However, A person with permanent possession of a game (such as a legally purchased game either from retail or used) DOES gain those rights to an archival copy. These rights supercede any restriction on those rights Nintendo would presume to apply. Nintendo presumes to add extra conditions and terms that do not actually exist in the law.
The purpose of the archival copy provision is to protect legal owner’s access to the computer software in case of damage. If your copy of a game breaks, such as a broken CD, you have the legal right, as owner of that CD, to continue to use the computer software on that CD no matter its physical condition. An archival copy could then be used to create a working version of that CD so that you, the legal owner of that copy, may continue to access that computer software. This is also the case when access to that software becomes difficult or impossible, such as a game or other computer software that is stored on archaic storage media such as a floppy disk or paper tape.
This is correct, as long as the copy was produced lawfully, which is only possible if no copy protection was circumvented.
Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states: No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
This law was created to limit the rights from 17 USC 117, and yes exceptions to section 103 exist, but those are very specific and some of them even exclude games specifically from the exceptions.
But I am no lawyer, and as a European I only have a very limited view and knowledge of US laws, so yes it is only my understanding of those laws and I could be wrong, so don’t take my words as a legal advice or anything like that. I am only a normal human with some experience with laws and jurisdictions, but far away from a specialist.
What is defined as copy here? Cartridge data (game data, not firmware etc) is encrypted and can only be accessed by a protocol that is like spi, but is proprietary, by a specific chip running nintendo code. Or is a copy a full backup of everything on the chip?
Is the copy a raw copy? Has the data been modified/decrypted/or any algorithm processed it?
These things define wether a copy falls under this or not. Check what the fineprint or laws defines what ’ a copy’ is exactly in this case.
If it doesnt, what i mentioned are important to see if what you said apply here or not.
Like @DarkMetatron said, its only legal if nothing is done with the data. Any decryption using a nintendo key is infact, illegal, and falls under piracy.
This is why dolphin was removed from steam, because they do exactly that. Decrypt the data to use it.
If the process of dumping does any encryption or decryption, you also get in trouble in what they said.
These are the laws, and the lawyer you asked this too must not have been specialised in ip law, copyright and games, or doesnt know the technical details to decide on this.
The mig chip uses a proprietary protocol to send data of a partly, semi decrypted, game image. That will not go well in court, no matter if the rom was obtained legally.
You may have the right to make a backup, but playing that backup on a non sectioned device or via non sectioned means is still a breach of the TOS and breaking the license terms of the game and/or console. Oh and it is in violation of the DMCA as far as I know, because to make the backup it is needed to circumvent copy protection, which is forbidden by the rules of the DMCA (and equal laws in other jurisdictions like Europe). You may own the cartridge, but you still only have a license (with very specific terms and rules) to use the software on it.
Using modified hardware might break other regulations or terms of services, but using a backup copy of a copy you own that hardware is not piracy in several jursidictions. Which is the answer to the question in the comment.
And no, it is specifically not against DMCA to make a backup of media that you physically own. That’s actually a major part of what make self-copied ROMs legal in the US.
Nearly all jurisdictions have DMCA like laws which clearly say that circumventing copy protection is against the law. So in those jurisdictions it is piracy to use a backup of a copy protected game and I am very sure that a map of the countries where the Switch 2 can be officially bought and a map with countries who have thoses laws will produce a lot of matches. Maybe I am wrong, but I highly doubt it.
techdirt.com
Ważne