ROM Hack Nintendo closing Rom hacking and speedrunning channels.

[Thelostrune]

They even take your fucking phone number when you create an account

Pretty sure you don't need to, but they'll push it in your face because of "security concerns".

 

[sporkonomix]

Well, with the amount of access to your behavioral data and the amount of data mining that google does they probably can guess who you are after you use your google browser as normal for a couple of minutes.

And that's why I don't have a Google account or use any of their services! I block cookies and scripts from them, etc. It's a small price to pay to ensure you can't be identified as you browse. I have NoScript and RequestPolicy to help protect me. At some point I want to use a VPN to make it even harder to track me.

 

[TheSockNaster]

Why speedrunning channels?

 

[jakrodriguez]

Interesting I do have a few Pokemon romhack videos and heck my skyward sword videos are registered with the NCP so I'm surprised they haven't done anything to my videos yet.
I guess they're going after channels that use their IPs without using the NCP to some extent.

 

[TheSockNaster]

Nintendo is shutting down rom hacking or TASing youtube channels. Be aware!
I reccomend you to delete all the videos related to that content in your channel, if you don't want to get banned from Youtube.

Here is the notification I got, when my channel Pablohack&glitch about MK7 hacking got closed.

EDIT:
By making a derivative work using Nintendo's IP, and then displaying Nintendo's IP on your YouTube channel, you have violated Nintendo's exclusive rights.

Here is a thread talking about that on destructoid.com:
http://www.destructoid.com/nintendo...edrunning-and-rom-hacking-videos-310152.phtml

-PabloHack&Glitch: Banned MK7 custom track maker from youtube.

What if we have Machinima or IGN?

 

[doctorgoat]

And that's why I don't have a Google account or use any of their services! I block cookies and scripts from them, etc. It's a small price to pay to ensure you can't be identified as you browse. I have NoScript and RequestPolicy to help protect me. At some point I want to use a VPN to make it even harder to track me.

people who get this into security concerns make me wonder why they think anyone will go to the effort

not even like "what do you have to hide", but "what can you hope to achieve to make anyone curious enough to look"

 

[TheSockNaster]

people who get this into security concerns make me wonder why they think anyone will go to the effort

not even like "what do you have to hide", but "what can you hope to achieve to make anyone curious enough to look"

Good point. Out of all the people doing this why just one random person?

 

[flarn2006]

That's easy. IP addresses, cookies, undeletable evercookies, browser fingerprinting. So unless you set up and use a VM with it's own VPN connection just for youtube (and be sure WebRTC is disabled) yes, they can tell.

No such thing as undeletable cookies.

 

[sporkonomix]

people who get this into security concerns make me wonder why they think anyone will go to the effort

not even like "what do you have to hide", but "what can you hope to achieve to make anyone curious enough to look"

That's like saying "why bother pulling the blinds in your windows, what makes you think people want to see you naked when you shower?"

It's not about an immediate threat. It's the fact that the ability to be a threat is right there, and all it takes is someone with the know-how to take advantage of it. Most people won't want to watch what you're doing at all times, but you still close and lock your doors and windows, don't you? Would you leave a handgun outside with the assumption that *most people* would probably knock on your door and return it to you?

There are tons of people who don't care about their privacy or security; that doesn't make the ones who *do* weird. The mentality people take, assuming nobody would target them, is very naïve. You and I aren't victims *now*, no. But in the event we *are* targeted, it would be very beneficial to already have a setup in place to thwart those who *do* want your information.

In this age, knowing something about someone can be used against them and lead to very real consequences, even over the Internet. I'm not going to push other people to protect themselves, but I won't feel sorry for the ones who trust corporations and end up a victim (of the government or criminals who acquired the information). I simply can't trust a profit-driven entity to protect me, because it's not in their business interest.

 

[johnny-sasaki]

it's for this kind of attitude that I don't feel bad for seeing the Wii U performing so weak.Hell, I will laugh if the hacking and modding scenes hit the Wii U just as hard as they did with the Wii.
I feel no sympathy for a company with such a behavior like this.It's actually funny how Nintendo is acting all mighty as if they were still the ones dictating how the gaming industry works (during their prime,they were very monopolistic, demanding exclusivity from third-party publishers and developers if they wanted their games on the NES and SNES. Sega and Sony thankfuly showed that the Nintendo way wasn't the only way. )

 

[nl255]

That's like saying "why bother pulling the blinds in your windows, what makes you think people want to see you naked when you shower?"

It's not about an immediate threat. It's the fact that the ability to be a threat is right there, and all it takes is someone with the know-how to take advantage of it. Most people won't want to watch what you're doing at all times, but you still close and lock your doors and windows, don't you? Would you leave a handgun outside with the assumption that *most people* would probably knock on your door and return it to you?

There are tons of people who don't care about their privacy or security; that doesn't make the ones who *do* weird. The mentality people take, assuming nobody would target them, is very naïve. You and I aren't victims *now*, no. But in the event we *are* targeted, it would be very beneficial to already have a setup in place to thwart those who *do* want your information.

In this age, knowing something about someone can be used against them and lead to very real consequences, even over the Internet. I'm not going to push other people to protect themselves, but I won't feel sorry for the ones who trust corporations and end up a victim (of the government or criminals who acquired the information). I simply can't trust a profit-driven entity to protect me, because it's not in their business interest.

Not to mention a signifigant speed boost by blocking all of that crap, especially the third party stuff. Hell, just using ghostery often provides a considerable speedup.

 

[ferofax]

That's not true, you can legally patch roms from all disk-based consoles (and use a flashcart for all consoles that are cartridge based, but that technically justifies Nintendo)

So you can legally modify software despite all the EULAs you implicitly AGREED TO specifically states otherwise?

That's confusing as fuck. But I suppose as long as there's no money involved, I personally wouldn't care less. But when you start making money out of someone else's IPs, despite the hard work and effort you put in, I draw the line right there. You weren't supposed to be fiddling with that anyway. Meh.

it's for this kind of attitude that I don't feel bad for seeing the Wii U performing so weak.Hell, I will laugh if the hacking and modding scenes hit the Wii U just as hard as they did with the Wii.
I feel no sympathy for a company with such a behavior like this.It's actually funny how Nintendo is acting all mighty as if they were still the ones dictating how the gaming industry works (during their prime,they were very monopolistic, demanding exclusivity from third-party publishers and developers if they wanted their games on the NES and SNES. Sega and Sony thankfuly showed that the Nintendo way wasn't the only way. )

I understand where this is coming from, but I dunno man. If that was my IPs, and people were having their way with it willy-nilly, I'd enforce the rules too. The legal system is too open for abuse by people, and letting this be means Nintendo can't really claim shit because what about the speedrunners and romhackers? It'd be a bad precedent if things actually came to a lawsuit. Nintendo could actually lose hold of their own IPs if a romhacker won a lawsuit like that. Open season for Nintendo IPs. No business would want that.

 

[FAST6191]

So you can legally modify software despite all the EULAs you implicitly AGREED TO specifically states otherwise?

That's confusing as fuck. But I suppose as long as there's no money involved, I personally wouldn't care less. But when you start making money out of someone else's IPs, despite the hard work and effort you put in, I draw the line right there. You weren't supposed to be fiddling with that anyway. Meh.


I understand where this is coming from, but I dunno man. If that was my IPs, and people were having their way with it willy-nilly, I'd enforce the rules too. The legal system is too open for abuse by people, and letting this be means Nintendo can't really claim shit because what about the speedrunners and romhackers? It'd be a bad precedent if things actually came to a lawsuit. Nintendo could actually lose hold of their own IPs if a romhacker won a lawsuit like that. Open season for Nintendo IPs. No business would want that.

Depending upon where you are the EULA might not be enforceable (it would have been presented after the point of sale in a lot of cases and thus invalid in a lot of regions) and also you may well have the inherent right to mess with the software. There are several laws to the tune of you are allowed to mess with devices you own, and may even still be able to claim warranty -- I can put an engine killing nitrous injecting turbo kit on my car and the dealer would quite rightly tell me to do one if I tried to come in for a warranty there but if my boot latch breaks on said car then in a lot of places they can be forced to fix it under warranty, to what extent these various rulings apply to software is very unclear in a lot of jurisdictions but I would not be very confident if I found myself in a restrictive software developer's shoes.

Similarly it is unlikely Nintendo, or any company, would lose their IP in the average lawsuit to arise from this sort of thing (not that Nintendo has not been on the other side of that one -- http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Universal+City+Studios,+Inc.+v.+Nintendo+Co.,+Ltd. ). The closest you tend to come to that is when you cook up a similar story, which is presumably why http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules gets you to sign away your rights to such stories, and is covered a bit more in http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html . The hacking thing might well render it effectively a different game as far as game theory is concerned which could then be the basis for a trademark claim (also presumably why you were not allowed to call your halo machinima Halo ???? in said Microsoft rules) but that is perhaps a different matter.

Indeed the only thing that probably stops IP rights holders from quaking in their boots is that to do it you would probably have to bypass some protection somewhere along the line, the bypassing itself, even for incredibly weak protections, is then potentially dubious under the law in a lot of places. Many such laws are also slowly being recognised for the junk that they are and are increasingly getting pruned away though.

 

[ferofax]

You lost me at the car parts analogy, but I assume it involved extensive engine modifications that car dealers do not support, much like doing hardmods on consoles.

The hacking thing might well render it effectively a different game as far as game theory is concerned which could then be the basis for a trademark claim

This... is pretty scary. To put it simply, this could render something like Pokemon Jade as a different game entirely and be trademarked?

Indeed the only thing that probably stops IP rights holders from quaking in their boots is that to do it you would probably have to bypass some protection somewhere along the line, the bypassing itself, even for incredibly weak protections, is then potentially dubious under the law in a lot of places. Many such laws are also slowly being recognised for the junk that they are and are increasingly getting pruned away though.

Yeah, this is the thing that kinda gets me when it comes to piracy, romhacking, cracking and whatnot. Even if the protection was paper thin, the fact that it's there means they don't want people poking their noses in there. It's a private thing - can't touch this. But people crack it anyway, because that's how people are. If they know they can get away with it, people will do stupid shit, from draw penises on your face while you're passed out to actually rape you and maybe even murder you, just because they can. But I digress. So yeah, thin line saying do not cross, but people cross it anyway.

So who's the transgressor here? I dunno about you, but that's violation of privacy to me. The act of bypassing is a violation of privacy.

And yet people defend themselves, coz it's this shit and that shit and freedom and whatnot and the all-important reasons. BECAUSE REASONS! LOL. Ah, but I don't necessarily blame them though. I mean, humans are naturally inquisitive. They see a box that's empty, they ignore it. But close the box and they go, "Oooh, what's inside this thing?". Some humans won't mind crossing lines to do that. And it seems I've digressed even further, lol.

A~~~~nyways, so. Nintendo cracking down on romhackers (because at the end of the day, that's their only issue here - the aforementioned speedrunner uses roms, probably hacked roms). Let's just say that my stand on this is that people weren't supposed to be fiddling with those anyway. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the good things that happen when people fiddle with things that they aren't supposed to fiddle with. Just means that when they get caught fiddling, the least they can expect is a slap on the wrist. That leaves margin for the worst, and anything in between.

 

[FAST6191]

The car parts thing was not really anything to do with hardmods, though I would use the same legal rulings there for several arguments when it comes to hardmods, but more that many laws are actually quite limited in scope.

Also drawing on faces/shaving eyebrows if you pass out drunk at a party is a time honoured tradition.

Also you would not be able to trademark pokemon jade as many things within pokemon are themselves trademarked. It is more that you would be in violation of a trademark by calling it pokemon -- it is why MS do not want people calling their machinima sidestories for Halo anything with Halo (or possibly titles of the games) in the name in the rules I linked.

On protection being paper thin. If my house lock consists of a paper chain attached with electrical tape (and that would be a step up for most things up to the N64, the N64 being something of a paper clip chain attached with gaffer tape) then the insurance company will tell me to do one if I try to claim and the police will similar chastise me. Why then a different logic applies to software I do not know.

Using ROMs or not is not Nintendo's issue from where I sit, I am not sure where that interpretation came from as there are even various clear exceptions in software laws that say reverse engineering for interoperability is OK. I would say their issue comes from being idiots but their legal argument pretty much has to come from the same copyright stuff they have been using the last few times and possibly trademark law for reasons we have already covered (almost definitely in the case of a TAS you are not making a true representation, or at very best are making a heavy remix, and therefore calling it [some game] risks misinterpretation by the public at large which is what trademark law is mostly concerned with). As for fiddling with things there is very little I am not allowed to fiddle with when all is said and done -- they can ask nicely and may even have a smidge of legal basis in some places. If you want to frame it a privacy violation under your morals then fine, you seem to have arrived at that by your own logic which is great, however I can not get there for me and it also does not seem to be one I can interpret a law (at least for any legal systems I know) to get to.

 

[Arubaro]

Is speedrunning that dangerous to Nintendo...?

 

[FAST6191]

Is speedrunning that dangerous to Nintendo...?

Is anything that they have seemingly taken exception to that dangerous to Nintendo? Going by the letter of the law they can take much of this sort of thing out but many have questioned why they would want to. It is not a universal positive (people behaving like idiots could see an unjustified negative perception of their game arise, it is not unreasonable to see some people delay a purchase or refrain from one entirely if they can watch it instead, possibly something with trademarks and a few other things) but at the same time creating a community around your work is more or less the holy grail of advertising/PR and this sort of thing hardly fosters such a community.

 

[piratesephiroth]

Nice, Nintendo is now taking down facebook groups about Gateway

 

[VinsCool]

Nice, Nintendo is now taking down facebook groups about Gateway

Really?

 

[the_randomizer]

Nice, Nintendo is now taking down facebook groups about Gateway

And no one seemed to care