Homebrew Companies (Like Nintendo) Might have just been put up against a wall.

[duffmmann]

So again, because apparently understanding simple English is way too hard for some people.

I never said I was wrongfully banned.
I never asked for the ban to be lifted.
I never asked for proof.

All I said was it WOULD be nice if the error code COULD correspond to something precise like "use of unauthorised software".
That way if you did use unauthorised software you STFU and deal with it and if you didn't it's easier to contest the ban.

Sure, it'd be nice of them. But they don't have to, and I wouldn't hold your breath on them changing that aspect of it either. They probably don't want to make it easier for the hackers to potentially bypass the banwaves by nailing down what exactly it is they are looking for in CFW users.

 

[Redferne]

Sure, it'd be nice of them. But they don't have to, and I wouldn't hold your breath on them changing that aspect of it either. They probably don't want to make it easier for the hackers to potentially bypass the banwaves by nailing down what exactly it is they are looking for in CFW users.

I know but I don't see how creating a new error code and the webpage for is giving any information to hackers. Unauthorised software includes everything from Homebrew, CFW to illegal CIAs.

I actually think they went easy on us, they could have banned us from firmware and software update, eShop... well everything beside launching what's already on the console.

 

[duffmmann]

I know but I don't see how creating a new error code and the webpage for is giving any information to hackers. Unauthorised software includes everything from Homebrew, CFW to illegal CIAs.

I actually think they went easy on us, they could have banned us from firmware and software update, eShop... well everything beside launching what's already on the console.

I don't see the point honestly. We're banned and I really don't care why, I know I did things I shouldn't have done with my 3DS and Nintendo caught me, that's all that matters.

 

[Redferne]

I don't see the point honestly. We're banned and I really don't care why, I know I did things I shouldn't have done with my 3DS and Nintendo caught me, that's all that matters.

Yes to us it makes sense but that's not necessary the case for everyone. But yeah since they don't have to I don't see it happening either.

 

[DeslotlCL]

After skimming the pdf released by the Supreme Court, it looks like the ruling deals specifically with the case of reselling patented products. It's barely a step in the right direction, really, but a step nonetheless. It'll be quite a while still until full consumer rights are given to people who do things like hack consoles. As far as Nintendo goes, they're as of now completely unaffected, as they've never tried to legally persecute the reselling of their consoles.

Wasnt there a case of a guy in spain being put on hail for reselling hacked 3ds consoles?

 

[H1B1Esquire]

Wasnt there a case of a guy in spain being put on hail for reselling hacked 3ds consoles?

I tink he was also selling pirated games with the systems.

 

[Foxi4]

So again, because apparently understanding simple English is way too hard for some people.

I never said I was wrongfully banned.
I never asked for the ban to be lifted.
I never asked for proof.

All I said was it WOULD be nice if the error code COULD correspond to something precise like "use of unauthorised software".
That way if you did use unauthorised software you STFU and deal with it and if you didn't it's easier to contest the ban.

That's a fair complaint - it would be nice if the message was clear and consistent across all regions.

 

[osaka35]

Digital services are different than physical services.

Digital games are "rented" in a sense, as you cannot own any of the software. You own the right to USE the software as often as you'd like, with limitations (usually it's limited to one account or one console, or maybe just so long as you pay a monthly fee, varies based on the wishes of the company).

Physical games you own the physical medium the software comes on, so you "own" the disc. The code is still the company's property. When you remove that aspect of owning something physical, as what happens when you buy digital, all that's left is the code. So you basically purchase the right to use it. In both physical and digital, you do not purchase the right to use the actual code as you want. So, if they wanted to, they can invalidate your right to use the software/code for a variety of reasons (this has happened before a few times).

So basically, physical is physical+digital, and companies can't bust down your door and steal back anything physical just because their digital stuff is in it. But they can if it's just digital since the protections inherent with physical property don't exist. which could be seen as you not really owning the digital copy. It's...well, it's weird. but that's what it is. And consoles are slightly different, as there is additional physicality (the hardware) to deal with, but that's a different conversation.

This is the current state of copyright in the United States (and isn't absolute, there are exceptions and accommodations). I'm not sure where other countries stand, but it'll be somewhat similar in most places.

This court case is interesting, but I don't think it directly applies to ownership and copyright of video games and software.

 

[BL4Z3D247]

Great posts @Foxi4.

People, we all agreed not to use modified/unauthorized software when we accepted Nintendo's ToS. As it's been said we own the hardware, the physical console, that's it. The software that we modify is Nintendo's property, they own anything on that console. By us modify or installing unauthorized software on the console we VIOLATE Nintendo's ToS and they have THE RIGHT to ban you anyway they see fit. In the case of the recent banwave they banned people from the online game servers THEY OWN. The console YOU OWN is still operational so why is this even being discussed. We don't even pay for online gaming on the 3DS! You all need to just take responsibility for the actions you took because you agreed to their ToS and broke it, plain and simple.

 

[medicy]

Nice.

 

[Deleted User]

Digital services are different than physical services.

Digital games are "rented" in a sense, as you cannot own any of the software. You own the right to USE the software as often as you'd like, with limitations (usually it's limited to one account or one console, or maybe just so long as you pay a monthly fee, varies based on the wishes of the company).

Physical games you own the physical medium the software comes on, so you "own" the disc. The code is still the company's property. When you remove that aspect of owning something physical, as what happens when you buy digital, all that's left is the code. So you basically purchase the right to use it. In both physical and digital, you do not purchase the right to use the actual code as you want. So, if they wanted to, they can invalidate your right to use the software/code for a variety of reasons (this has happened before a few times).

So basically, physical is physical+digital, and companies can't bust down your door and steal back anything physical just because their digital stuff is in it. But they can if it's just digital since the protections inherent with physical property don't exist. which could be seen as you not really owning the digital copy. It's...well, it's weird. but that's what it is. And consoles are slightly different, as there is additional physicality (the hardware) to deal with, but that's a different conversation.

This is the current state of copyright in the United States (and isn't absolute, there are exceptions and accommodations). I'm not sure where other countries stand, but it'll be somewhat similar in most places.

This court case is interesting, but I don't think it directly applies to ownership and copyright of video games and software.

Given these technicalities, it's no wonder that people are still defending physical distribution.

 

[dubbz82]

Given these technicalities, it's no wonder that people are still defending physical distribution.

Besides this, they chew up space on your SD card and eat up bandwidth to download so in many cases they cost more (directly or indirectly) than physical games.

 

[MushGuy]

Exactly, and if you believe that they wrongfully banned you, then contest them. Bring Nintendo to court and prove them wrong. But he wont, because fact is he was rightfully banned and he knows it.

Unless you're Platinum Lucario.

 

[Funkymon]

Besides this, they chew up space on your SD card and eat up bandwidth to download so in many cases they cost more (directly or indirectly) than physical games.

If we're going that route, it costs money to pay for gas to go to the store.

 

[dubbz82]

If we're going that route, it costs money to pay for gas to go to the store.

True...if you're driving, and you're not already there for other reasons.

 

[Majickhat55]

I'm confused on how the case correlates to the Nintendo banwave, or ownership of intellectual property. It's standard practice for every single gaming company to sell licenses to use their products (digital gaming) you don't own them. Period. You agreed to that before/when you bought it and they very well can take it away anytime they want. They can't exactly do that with physical media. Also, the online services are a private service offered at Nintendo's discretion, it's a privilege not a right. They have every right to rescind access for any reason at any time.

I also do not think refilling ink cartridges and adding a new microchip for resell is the equivalent of an "almost" complete RE of an entire console, or video game for that matter. That's an entirely different can of worms.

 

[dubbz82]

I'm confused on how the case correlates to the Nintendo banwave, or ownership of intellectual property. It's standard practice for every single gaming company to sell licenses to use their products (digital gaming) you don't own them. Period. You agreed to that before/when you bought it and they very well can take it away anytime they want. They can't exactly do that with physical media. Also, the online services are a private service offered at Nintendo's discretion, it's a privilege not a right. They have every right to rescind access for any reason at any time.

I also do not think refilling ink cartridges and adding a new microchip for resell is the equivalent of an "almost" complete RE of an entire console, or video game for that matter. That's an entirely different can of worms.

The only thing that really holds weight is the ability to run whatever you'd like on the hardware you paid for. What this boils down to is being able to legally install whatever (legally obtained) software you'd like on the hardware that you own, including but not limited to installing linux in place of the existing operating system, or running a cfw if you'd like. It has exactly zero to do with the recent bans, because as others have pointed out, you're still in blatant violation of their terms and conditions if you're not running only software that they've distributed, within the means that they've distributed it. What some people aren't quite putting together as these two have basically nothing to do with each other at all in regards of what nintendo can and can't do. Provided this holds up in court, they CAN'T come after you for installing cfw on systems and selling them as-is without anything else preinstalled on them......mind you various retailers might still disallow this, even if it's legal.