There are laws about where you can and can't drive.
and cops can fine or arrest, suspend licences etc. on people committing traffic offences on public land/roads, that doesnt mean because people have the ability to commit crimes in cars vehicles are only dictated to drive to and from predetermined places allowed by that cars manufacurer.
also you can drive where you want on your own land, the car doesnt stop driving on dirt roads, in fields etc.
you can even buy a vehicle without a license or insurance no one prevents you from utilizing that once its your property but break a law and charges/legal filings could happen.
Nintendo doesnt give us a unlocked console and only locks it down for convicted pirates, nor do they unlock the device when requested by a purchaser not guilty of piracy.
The problem you have is that courts believe that most consoles are modified for piracy, so they passed a law that banned it. I think they are correct in their assumption and I suspect that you think they are correct to but don't want to accept it.
I think whether they or I believe that or not is different to whether companies should or should not have the right to dictate access and usage rights to my private property.
as I said from the beginning its not disputed they have the legal right to, I'd argue they dont have the moral right to.
many laws throughout history have been unjust and immoral.
its not about me accepting anything or not
Nintendo didn't introduce the law, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
You haven't established how they want their cake and eat it.
they like many other software publishers and hardware companies often are taking advantage of a corrupt laws to suit their means.
not to mention utilizing lobby groups for legalized bribery to get the laws past in the 1st place and strengthened over the years.
they are not the sole cause but just because they aren't the elected official that imposed the laws doesn't mean they are not complicit in their abuse.
Nintendo doesnt need to release their hardware locked down, they also have the ability to unlock it at will, in this instance they are the roadblock.
they are the problem.
I'll ignore legal backups, emulation, linux, media centres and home-brew for arguments sake.
why should a pirate feel morally inferior for "stealing" access to a copy of Nintendo's software titles if at the same time, Nintendo are simultaneously "stealing" full access to that pirate's (and millions of other people's) hardware?
I can agree both pirates and Nintendo Co., Ltd./ anyone their involved in DRM are both immoral if you want to agrue that, but thats not the dispute you started.
your claim is everyone should loose their property rights to hardware they purchased because the manufacturer of that hardware wants to stop a small percentage of people that pirate.
so in essence the many (all) should suffer to stop the few, seems like a pretty Immoral stance to me.
I say if I had to pick one as the moral party its the one who paid for the hardware who has yet to be proven to have broken the law and till then is innocent until proven guilty.
You haven't established how they want their cake and eat it.
they want you to pay as if you bought something yet they want to dictate your usage of it as if they never sold it to you in the 1st place when it comes to hardware.
they argue they dont sell you the game (1's & 0's make up the binary, the contained assets etc.)
they claim instead no you bought a license to view/use that game.
yet when it comes to for example the virtual consoles etc. they force you to buy a 2nd licence as if your 1st never existed.
morally it should be transferable but they offer no such transference mechanism or a way to surrender your existing license in exchange for a identical one on the newer/different platform.
(yes its not unqiue to Nintendo, its endemic to the media industry but once again we are not arguing laws but morality)
3rd is Nintendo abusing laws with lawsuits for example with mod chips or game cheating devices in the past.
many of those don't use Nintendo code and yet the sue on copyright grounds acting like they all do.
taking advantage of the aged largely tech illiterate judiciary.
(once again not unique to Nintendo but I never claimed it was)