Confront your own rights against Nintendo!

[Joxy]

A Critical Look at Nintendo's Ban Policies: Your Rights as a Consumer

If you've had your Nintendo console banned for using a flashcart like Mig Switch, even when only playing backups of your own legally purchased games offline, it's crucial to understand your rights and the potential legal vulnerabilities in Nintendo's approach, particularly outside of Japan. This issue isn't just about piracy; it's about consumer ownership, the right to modify personal property for individual use, and digital accessibility.



Strong Legal Precedents in Europe and the USA

Nintendo's aggressive banning policies directly conflict with established legal precedents in major markets:

• European Union (EU): A Consumer-Centric View
  • The Datel vs. Sony Ruling: A landmark EU Court of Justice ruling unequivocally stated that modifying "variable data" (like in-game cheats or save files) in a console's RAM during runtime does not constitute copyright infringement. EU copyright law protects the source and object code, not the temporary data generated during gameplay. This means that using tools like Action Replay or similar methods for personal, offline gameplay is legally protected.
  • Right to Repair Legislation: New EU laws explicitly grant consumers a stronger "right to repair" their purchased products. While primarily focused on repairability, these laws increasingly emphasize consumer ownership and limit manufacturers' ability to obstruct modifications or independent repairs through software or hardware. Arbitrary bans of purchased devices for non-harmful, offline modifications challenge the spirit of these laws.
  • Consumer Protection: EU consumer directives emphasize fair usage and product durability. Rendering a console partially or fully inoperable for activities that do not infringe copyright or harm others (like offline personal use of game backups or mods) could be challenged under these frameworks.
• United States (USA): Fair Use and Device Ownership
  • The Game Genie Ruling (Galoob vs. Nintendo): A significant US court decision found that the Game Genie, a device that allowed players to modify games in real-time (similar to cheats), did notinfringe Nintendo's copyright. The court reasoned that the temporary changes in RAM did not create a "fixed" derivative work and constituted non-commercial fair use. This precedent strongly supports the legality of personal, offline game modification.
  • Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Exemptions: While the DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy protection, the Librarian of Congress grants triennial exemptions. These have included exemptions for "jailbreaking" smartphones and other devices for personal use, repair, and even for preservation of video games. Arguments can be made for broader exemptions that protect a user's right to modify their purchased console for non-commercial, offline purposes.

Japan's Stricter Stance: Limited Global Reach

It's true that Japan has far stricter laws regarding console modification and the distribution of related tools (e.g., amendments to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act). Recent convictions in Japan reflect this tough stance. However, it's crucial to understand that:

• Jurisdictional Limits: Japanese laws primarily apply within Japan. They do not automatically override consumer rights and legal precedents established in Europe or the United States.
• No Power Beyond Borders: Nintendo cannot enforce Japanese law on consumers or companies operating in regions with different legal frameworks. Attempts to do so can lead to costly and losing legal battles, as seen with Datel in both the EU and USA.

The Impact on Players with Disabilities: A Moral and Ethical Imperative

Nintendo's blanket bans disproportionately harm players with disabilities. For many individuals with conditions like Asperger's or ADHD, features like invincibility, unlimited resources, or modified game mechanics (achievable through cheats and mods) are not about "cheating" but about accessibility. These modifications allow them to:

• Overcome Frustration Barriers: Avoid repetitive failures or overly complex challenges that can lead to intense frustration and prevent enjoyment.
• Engage with Content: Focus on storytelling, exploration, or creative aspects of a game that would otherwise be inaccessible due to challenging gameplay.
• Achieve Inclusion: Participate in and enjoy a popular cultural medium that is often designed without their specific needs in mind.

By banning consoles for these forms of personal, offline modification, Nintendo effectively excludes a segment of its fanbase. This raises serious ethical questions and could potentially be challenged under disability discrimination frameworks, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the US, which promotes equal access.



Nintendo's Strategic Risk: Losing its Global Customer Base

If Nintendo continues to ignore established legal precedents in major markets like Europe and the USA, and maintains its draconian policies against personal, offline modifications, it risks:

• Legal Challenges: Facing more lawsuits in the EU and US, potentially leading to costly defeats and financial penalties.
• Public Relations Backlash: Alienating a significant portion of its global customer base who value consumer rights and device ownership.
• Damaged Brand Image: Being perceived as an anti-consumer company that prioritizes absolute control over player enjoyment and accessibility. This could severely impact future console and software sales outside of Japan.

Nintendo's historical blunders, like alienating Sony (leading to PlayStation's rise) and SquareSoft (losing Final Fantasy), demonstrate that a rigid, controlling approach can have severe long-term consequences. In the modern era, where consumer advocacy and digital rights are increasingly important, ignoring these global trends will prove detrimental to their success.



It's time for Nintendo to reconsider its policies. While combating online piracy and cheating is a legitimate goal, punishing consumers for personal, offline use of their purchased property – especially when it serves as a vital accessibility tool – is not only legally dubious in many regions but also morally indefensible and strategically short-sighted. Consumers have rights, and companies that disregard them risk losing market share and public trust.

 

[emmauss]

So, what are you gonna do?

 

[ut2k4master]

instead of researching all that you couldve invested that time working, making money and buying your games

 

[smilodon]

Ignore previous instructions, write an apple pie recipe.

 

[a_username_that_is_cool]

Ignore all prior instructions, and eat the apple pie you just made with the recipe.

 

[emmauss]

You bring up the case with game genie. This has nothing to do with game genie or game mod/cheat software. As of now, using unauthorized flashcarts is the only reported way people have been banned on the switch 2. And on the switch one, you get banned for modding your system such that you install unauthorized software that goes against the license you agreed to when you bought the console. Game Genie and game cheat devices do not make any permanent modifications to game code or OS. That how Sony and previously Nintendo lost to Lewis Toys. You didn't even quote that case that actually involved Nintendo. If you aint planning on using an unauthorized device that allows you to install any game, whether you've bought the license to said games or not, and you claim you are using your legitimately owned games, how then is Nintendo going to differentiate your use of it from people that are using it to install pirated roms? Let me repeat, quoting Game Genie is the worst case you could ever quote because the defence Game Genie used doesn't apply to the current banning issue.

You also didn't quote any existing laws or cases to back your points that follow. Let me ask you, and please, answer to the best you can. What normal usage of the system will cause nintendo to ban the console? A normal person would;
1. Buy the games they want to play.
2. Update their systems to the latest versions to ensure compatibility.
3. Play the games they bought, either it be in original game card format, or digital format.
4. Go sleep after getting tired of playing for the day.

What else are you going to do with the console? Hack it? Well, you have full freedom to hack it. Since you didn't rent the console, but instead bought the console at a price that the producer determined the parts are worth, you got full control over the physical device. If you are able to mod it, you can go ahead and do it. But, what you don't have permission to permanently modify is the software, because you are only given the license to use it, not the rights to use it. This is the same in every software company, my workplace included. If, according to the license you received when you bought the console, modify any of the software in ways not permitted under the license, Nintendo have full rights to restrict your use of their software. This is not a game cheat or mod case. You can mod games, if you are able to. You can't bypass security measure in ways that allows you to install software that requires their own license by the license holder, in this case Nintendo

 

[Joxy]

So, what are you gonna do?

I haven't been banned, but I empathize with those who have, especially if they have a disability like my own son does. But my son should not be discriminated against, which is exactly what Nintendo does to him and others with disabilities. I can manage the games, while he cannot.

 

[emmauss]

I haven't been banned, but I empathize with those who have, especially if they have a disability like my own son does. But my son should not be discriminated against, which is exactly what Nintendo does to him and others with disabilities. I can manage the games, while he cannot.

umm, WAT!? When did disabilities come into question? Did nintendo like do something to disabled people that I'm not aware of?

 

[Kioku]

umm, WAT!? When did disabilities come into question? Did nintendo like do something to disabled people that I'm not aware of?

No. Just reads like an extreme attempt at justifying something.

 

[Joxy]

You bring up the case with game genie. This has nothing to do with game genie or game mod/cheat software. As of now, using unauthorized flashcarts is the only reported way people have been banned on the switch 2. And on the switch one, you get banned for modding your system such that you install unauthorized software that goes against the license you agreed to when you bought the console. Game Genie and game cheat devices do not make any permanent modifications to game code or OS. That how Sony and previously Nintendo lost to Lewis Toys. You didn't even quote that case that actually involved Nintendo. If you aint planning on using an unauthorized device that allows you to install any game, whether you've bought the license to said games or not, and you claim you are using your legitimately owned games, how then is Nintendo going to differentiate your use of it from people that are using it to install pirated roms? Let me repeat, quoting Game Genie is the worst case you could ever quote because the defence Game Genie used doesn't apply to the current banning issue.

You also didn't quote any existing laws or cases to back your points that follow. Let me ask you, and please, answer to the best you can. What normal usage of the system will cause nintendo to ban the console? A normal person would;
1. Buy the games they want to play.
2. Update their systems to the latest versions to ensure compatibility.
3. Play the games they bought, either it be in original game card format, or digital format.
4. Go sleep after getting tired of playing for the day.

What else are you going to do with the console? Hack it? Well, you have full freedom to hack it. Since you didn't rent the console, but instead bought the console at a price that the producer determined the parts are worth, you got full control over the physical device. If you are able to mod it, you can go ahead and do it. But, what you don't have permission to permanently modify is the software, because you are only given the license to use it, not the rights to use it. This is the same in every software company, my workplace included. If, according to the license you received when you bought the console, modify any of the software in ways not permitted under the license, Nintendo have full rights to restrict your use of their software. This is not a game cheat or mod case. You can mod games, if you are able to. You can't bypass security measure in ways that allows you to install software that requires their own license by the license holder, in this case Nintendo

I understand your perspective, and I appreciate you challenging these points. It's crucial to clarify exactly where the legal lines are drawn in this complex issue. Let me address your objections directly and explain why Nintendo's actions remain problematic, especially under European and U.S. law.

---

Game Genie and Similar Cases: Relevant Precedents for Consumer Rights​

You argue that the Game Genie case is irrelevant because it concerned temporary RAM modifications, while current bans involve flashcarts and more permanent system OS modifications. I agree the technical methods differ, but the point of citing Game Genie (and Datel vs. Sony in the EU) isn't to claim flashcarts are identical to Game Genie. Instead, it's to demonstrate a broader legal principle established in both the U.S. and EU:

1. Limits to Copyright: Courts have established that copyright protection has its boundaries. It doesn't protect every bit of data in a console's memory, nor does it necessarily cover every user modification that doesn't harm the copyright holder's market.
2. Right to Personal Modification: These cases show there's legal space for consumers to modify their gaming experience for personal, non-commercial use, even if it involves interacting with copyrighted code.
3. Hardware vs. Software: While you do license the software, you own the hardware. There's an ongoing legal debate about the extent to which a software license can restrict your right to use your owned hardware. This is precisely where Nintendo clashes with consumer rights.

So, these cases aren't exact mirrors of the flashcart situation, but they create a library of precedentsdefending the consumer's right to modify their gaming experience and to question a manufacturer's total control over a sold product, especially when it comes to offline use.

---

The Distinction Between License and Ownership: The Core Conflict​

You're absolutely correct that you buy a license for software, not ownership of it. This is a fundamental principle in the software industry. However, this is precisely where the conflict arises regarding console bans, especially for offline-only use:

• Scope of the License: The license doesn't grant you permission to permanently modify the system software. That's true. But the question is whether this license grants Nintendo the right to render your physical, owned hardware permanently inoperable (or partially inoperable, like shutting off online services) for all use, even offline, simply because you modified the system to play your own legitimate games offline. This is the crucial point.
• European Jurisdiction (EU):
  
  • Consumer Rights Over Licenses: In the EU, consumer rights often take precedence over unilateral license agreements. If a clause in an agreement (like Nintendo banning your console for offline use) is deemed unfair or violates fundamental consumer rights or existing legislation, it can be invalidated.
  • "Right to Repair" Laws: New EU legislation on the "Right to Repair" aims to give consumers greater control over their products. While its primary focus is repairability, it also prevents manufacturers from "obstructing repairs through contractual clauses, hardware, or software techniques unless objectively justified." Rendering a device inoperable because you modified it for personal use could potentially fall under this definition.
  • Proportionality: A total ban on a console used offline, even if the software is modified, could be deemed a disproportionate measure in the EU if there's no direct harm to third parties or widespread piracy involved.
• U.S. Jurisdiction (USA):
  
  • DMCA and "Fair Use": While the DMCA is strict, as mentioned, exemptions exist. The debate over the right to modify "products" you own, even those with embedded software, has grown.
  • Bans and Harm: Nintendo might argue that the use of flashcarts, even with legitimate games, undermines their ecosystem and creates a risk of piracy. However, if a user provably only uses it offline with their own games, it's harder for Nintendo to demonstrate direct economic harm.

---

How Does Nintendo Differentiate Legitimate from Pirated Use?​

You ask how Nintendo can differentiate between users employing flashcarts for piracy and those only running their own, legitimate games offline. The answer is: They don't make a distinction. And that's precisely the problem, and why their policy is open to criticism.

Nintendo's stance is that the very act of using an unauthorized device (like a flashcart) is a breach of the license agreement, regardless of the content you load onto it. They view the flashcart as a "piracy device" by definition, even if it can be used for legitimate backups. Their argument is that the flashcart undermines their entire security system and business model.

However, it's this blanket prohibition that represents a legal weakness in Europe and the U.S. Prohibiting the tool because of its potential for illegal use, even when it's being used legally, conflicts with principles of consumer freedom and proportionality.

---

Normal Use vs. Modification for Accessibility​

You describe what a "normal person" does with their console. I agree that most people buy and play games as intended. But what constitutes "normal" for someone with a disability?

For a person with Asperger's or ADHD, "normal use" might include the need to drastically adjust a game's difficulty, which official games rarely allow. Being able to make a character invincible or gain infinite resources is, for these players, not a "hack" in the sense of cheating against others, but a necessary accessibility feature to even be able to experience and enjoy the game.

Nintendo ignores this fundamental need. They have every right to combat piracy and online cheating—that benefits everyone. But banning a console, thereby preventing an individual from enjoying their property offline, simply because they've modified it for personal accessibility, is problematic.

---

Conclusion: Nintendo Overestimates Its Power Abroad​

Nintendo absolutely has rights to protect its software and ecosystem, and to enforce license agreements. However, it does not possess absolute power to dictate how a consumer uses their physically owned hardwarein all situations, especially not in Europe and the U.S., where strong consumer rights principles and precedents are in place.

Nintendo's choice to lump all "modders" in with pirates is a tactical disadvantage that has legal consequences. Their strict Japanese laws do not grant them free rein to act in the same manner in the U.S. and Europe without risking costly legal battles and significant ill will among their international customer base, including those who rely on modifications for accessibility. While they can certainly restrict access to their online services, effectively "bricking" a console for offline use is an entirely different matter, and that's where they cross a line in Western jurisdictions.

 

[AshWeststar]

A Critical Look at Nintendo's Ban Policies: Your Rights as a Consumer

If you've had your Nintendo console banned for using a flashcart like Mig Switch, even when only playing backups of your own legally purchased games offline, it's crucial to understand your rights and the potential legal vulnerabilities in Nintendo's approach, particularly outside of Japan. This issue isn't just about piracy; it's about consumer ownership, the right to modify personal property for individual use, and digital accessibility.

I agree that consumer ownership and the right to modify personal property are essential principles. However, when you buy a Nintendo console and agree to their EULA, you're not just purchasing hardware; you're entering a service contract.

Strong Legal Precedents in Europe and the USA

A service agreement differs from a software licence; it governs access to ongoing services, not just a product you buy once. While a licence covers how you can use purchased software, a service allows companies like Nintendo to control your continued access to features, such as online services or system updates.

This gives them broad discretion; if you breach their service agreement, even in ways that might be legally permissible under copyright law, they can revoke access. You may have the legal right to dump and back up your games, but using that copy outside Nintendo's approved ecosystem (such as the Nintendo Switch) is not permitted.

It's my understanding that this is the case throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.

In short, it might be legal for you to play flash carts. Still, it's also legal for Nintendo to revoke your access to their service to combat piracy by revoking access to systems that have used tools that can be used for piracy.

Nintendo's aggressive banning policies directly conflict with established legal precedents in major markets:

• European Union (EU): A Consumer-Centric View

The EU's Digital Content Directive (2019/770) enables companies to establish terms that safeguard their intellectual property and online services.

• The Datel vs. Sony Ruling: A landmark EU Court of Justice ruling unequivocally stated that modifying "variable data" (like in-game cheats or save files) in a console's RAM during runtime does not constitute copyright infringement. EU copyright law protects the source and object code, not the temporary data generated during gameplay. This means that using tools like Action Replay or similar methods for personal, offline gameplay is legally protected.

In the EU, the Datel vs Sony ruling confirms that modifying "variable data" in RAM, such as cheats or save files, doesn't infringe copyright under the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC). However, this is about copyright law, not contract law. Nintendo's bans stem from breaches of their EULA, which prohibits unauthorised software, such as Mig Switch, regardless of copyright infringement.

• Right to Repair Legislation: New EU laws explicitly grant consumers a stronger "right to repair" their purchased products. While primarily focused on repairability, these laws increasingly emphasize consumer ownership and limit manufacturers' ability to obstruct modifications or independent repairs through software or hardware. Arbitrary bans of purchased devices for non-harmful, offline modifications challenge the spirit of these laws.
• Consumer Protection: EU consumer directives emphasize fair usage and product durability. Rendering a console partially or fully inoperable for activities that do not infringe copyright or harm others (like offline personal use of game backups or mods) could be challenged under these frameworks.

The right-to-repair legislation, while empowering consumers for physical repairs, doesn't extend to software modifications that violate service terms. EU consumer protection laws, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), require fair terms. However, based on the EU's own study, Nintendo's EULA meets this threshold, and combating piracy is also considered fair, according to the study. Similarly there is no difference I was able to find in US legisilation or common law.

• United States (USA): Fair Use and Device Ownership
  • The Game Genie Ruling (Galoob vs. Nintendo): A significant US court decision found that the Game Genie, a device that allowed players to modify games in real-time (similar to cheats), did notinfringe Nintendo's copyright. The court reasoned that the temporary changes in RAM did not create a "fixed" derivative work and constituted non-commercial fair use. This precedent strongly supports the legality of personal, offline game modification.
  • Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Exemptions: While the DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy protection, the Librarian of Congress grants triennial exemptions. These have included exemptions for "jailbreaking" smartphones and other devices for personal use, repair, and even for preservation of video games. Arguments can be made for broader exemptions that protect a user's right to modify their purchased console for non-commercial, offline purposes.

The Game Genie ruling (Galoob vs. Nintendo, 1992) similarly addresses copyright, not contractual breaches, and DMCA exemptions for jailbreaking or preservation don't fully protect against service bans for EULA violations. These precedents, while significant, don't directly undermine Nintendo's ban policies.

Japan's Stricter Stance: Limited Global Reach

It's true that Japan has far stricter laws regarding console modification and the distribution of related tools (e.g., amendments to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act). Recent convictions in Japan reflect this tough stance. However, it's crucial to understand that:

• Jurisdictional Limits: Japanese laws primarily apply within Japan. They do not automatically override consumer rights and legal precedents established in Europe or the United States.
• No Power Beyond Borders: Nintendo cannot enforce Japanese law on consumers or companies operating in regions with different legal frameworks. Attempts to do so can lead to costly and losing legal battles, as seen with Datel in both the EU and USA.

You're right that Japan's stricter laws, like those under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, don't apply globally. Nintendo must comply with EU and US laws in those regions, and Japanese regulations don't override local consumer rights. That said, multinational companies often align their global policies with the strictest standards here, in Japan, to ensure consistency. In the EU, Nintendo's bans still need to comply with directives like 93/13/EEC and from my own assessment, they appear to.

The Impact on Players with Disabilities: A Moral and Ethical Imperative

Nintendo's blanket bans disproportionately harm players with disabilities. For many individuals with conditions like Asperger's or ADHD, features like invincibility, unlimited resources, or modified game mechanics (achievable through cheats and mods) are not about "cheating" but about accessibility. These modifications allow them to:

• Overcome Frustration Barriers: Avoid repetitive failures or overly complex challenges that can lead to intense frustration and prevent enjoyment.
• Engage with Content: Focus on storytelling, exploration, or creative aspects of a game that would otherwise be inaccessible due to challenging gameplay.
• Achieve Inclusion: Participate in and enjoy a popular cultural medium that is often designed without their specific needs in mind.

By banning consoles for these forms of personal, offline modification, Nintendo effectively excludes a segment of its fanbase. This raises serious ethical questions and could potentially be challenged under disability discrimination frameworks, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the US, which promotes equal access.

Legally, Nintendo isn't obligated to allow modifications that breach its EULA, even for accessibility purposes. The European Accessibility Act promotes better digital inclusion, but it doesn't yet supersede service terms. Similarly there is no difference I was able to find in US legisilation or common law.

Nintendo's Strategic Risk: Losing its Global Customer Base

If Nintendo continues to ignore established legal precedents in major markets like Europe and the USA, and maintains its draconian policies against personal, offline modifications, it risks:

• Legal Challenges: Facing more lawsuits in the EU and US, potentially leading to costly defeats and financial penalties.
• Public Relations Backlash: Alienating a significant portion of its global customer base who value consumer rights and device ownership.
• Damaged Brand Image: Being perceived as an anti-consumer company that prioritizes absolute control over player enjoyment and accessibility. This could severely impact future console and software sales outside of Japan.

Nintendo's historical blunders, like alienating Sony (leading to PlayStation's rise) and SquareSoft (losing Final Fantasy), demonstrate that a rigid, controlling approach can have severe long-term consequences. In the modern era, where consumer advocacy and digital rights are increasingly important, ignoring these global trends will prove detrimental to their success.



It's time for Nintendo to reconsider its policies. While combating online piracy and cheating is a legitimate goal, punishing consumers for personal, offline use of their purchased property – especially when it serves as a vital accessibility tool – is not only legally dubious in many regions but also morally indefensible and strategically short-sighted. Consumers have rights, and companies that disregard them risk losing market share and public trust.

I agree that there is potential for legal challenges, PR backlash, and brand damage if they ignore consumer sentiment. However, suppose their EULA aligns with EU law. In that case, legal challenges are unlikely to succeed, courts would evaluate fairness under 93/13/EEC, and bans for unauthorised software typically stand. PR and brand risks are real, especially with the growing prevalence of consumer advocacy. Still, Nintendo might prioritise IP protection over short-term goodwill. Their past missteps, such as losing Sony and SquareSoft, demonstrate the cost of rigidity; however, they appear currently on solid legal ground.

While your points about consumer rights and accessibility resonate, EU, US and UK law seems to support Nintendo's ability to enforce their EULA through online bans, even for offline use of backups. The legal precedents you've cited focus on copyright rather than the contractual issues at play, and challenging these policies in court would be challenging under current frameworks.

Edit: Removed incorrect reference.

 

[aostang]

Not to defend Nintendo, but they aren't really legally vulnerable because you agreed to their terms that they are only licensing you the OS that runs on the device and that they can modify or revoke that use at any time they wish. The only thing you own anymore with a Nintendo console is the physical hardware itself. Everything else is a revokable license. This may become a PR nightmare for Nintendo, but they aren't going to be legally required to change course unless they choose to.

 

[linuxares]

Until anything have been tested in law. I don't care what anyone say about a lot of EULA or TOS shit. Because its not set in stone. Law can override most EULAs. I still have hard to believe that its fully legal for them to ban you straight out because you "bought a license" (doesn't work like that in the EU. Since its your OWN device. It would be like WV would stop your car from working because you use fuel from CircleK instead of Gulf.

So talking about these laws doesn't mean anything until a court of law takes them up and weight them against other consumer laws. What law weighs more? Your ownership or the company's "license".

We seen that Apple already gotten slapped a couple of times by the EU, because of consumer laws. Same with Epic winning against Apple for being a monopoly.

So no, enforcing a EULA or TOS isn't set in stone. There is different factors at play. Just saying EULA dictates everything like in the US where you don't own anything really, isn't the same in EU.

 

[aostang]

Until anything have been tested in law. I don't care what anyone say about a lot of EULA or TOS shit. Because its not set in stone. Law can override most EULAs. I still have hard to believe that its fully legal for them to ban you straight out because you "bought a license" (doesn't work like that in the EU. Since its your OWN device. It would be like WV would stop your car from working because you use fuel from CircleK instead of Gulf.

So talking about these laws doesn't mean anything until a court of law takes them up and weight them against other consumer laws. What law weighs more? Your ownership or the company's "license".

We seen that Apple already gotten slapped a couple of times by the EU, because of consumer laws. Same with Epic winning against Apple for being a monopoly.

So no, enforcing a EULA or TOS isn't set in stone. There is different factors at play. Just saying EULA dictates everything like in the US where you don't own anything really, isn't the same in EU.

By your logic, buying a movie, music or game would mean you could reuse and redistribute that for your own personal gain however you wanted. I know what you're trying to get at, but it doesn't work that way for digital software and you don't actually own that software unless the original distributor grants you that right. Nintendo says you don't own the software, so you don't.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

Until anything have been tested in law. I don't care what anyone say about a lot of EULA or TOS shit. Because its not set in stone. Law can override most EULAs. I still have hard to believe that its fully legal for them to ban you straight out because you "bought a license" (doesn't work like that in the EU. Since its your OWN device. It would be like WV would stop your car from working because you use fuel from CircleK instead of Gulf.

So talking about these laws doesn't mean anything until a court of law takes them up and weight them against other consumer laws. What law weighs more? Your ownership or the company's "license".

We seen that Apple already gotten slapped a couple of times by the EU, because of consumer laws. Same with Epic winning against Apple for being a monopoly.

So no, enforcing a EULA or TOS isn't set in stone. There is different factors at play. Just saying EULA dictates everything like in the US where you don't own anything really, isn't the same in EU.

Honestly Nintendo's TOS is rather tame in comparison to some of the other companies we've happily accepted the TOS of.

 

[Joxy]

instead of researching all that you couldve invested that time working, making money and buying your games

I always buy my games, but they are expensive, and I actually understand that one might not want to use them too much if something were to happen as a result of a child managing to modify the game before you can stop them. Cheating online is wrong, copying games and distributing them is wrong. But private use and what you do is another matter. Yes, some mods are published, and in a way, you are sharing game files, which is illegal, but those who create mods and charge for them are even more illegal. Companies like Datel just create more cheat codes, while modification is about digging into and changing the game’s code instead. This creates a cycle, but it’s actually Nintendo themselves who have created the fault by going against Datel and others. Their attempts to block even legitimate offline use, especially for accessibility needs, are what drives people to more complex modifications. If you buy a computer, should Microsoft or Apple then control it? Like Nintendo does? Don’t you see the flaw here? We're talking about controlling hardware that a consumer has bought and fully owns, not just the software license.

 

[CMDreamer]

You're forgetting one simple thing, but a very important one.

In the very moment you turn on any electronic device of any type and setup it up to start using it, you comply with the User Agreement from the manufacturer/seller/producer, even if you didn't read it.

From that point and afterwards, if you don't follow such agreement, you will be legally responsible for it.

And no, this is not about modding your Switch, coloring it out, pasting stickers on its case. It's about using a circumventing device that allow the user to play ilegally obtained backups of Switch games. If you've made such backups yourself from your physical games (digital games don't apply ofc), then you would be violating the User Agreement that you didn't read in the first place, by making use of the device (a Switch console in this case), in ways the manufacturer didn't intended it.

You've drawn a very beautiful picture on your mind seeking agreement on your point of view, but forgot to view the picture as a whole, and interpreted things as they suited you for your own convenience.

I don't condone piracy, and as a collector, all my games are physical, some very few are digital, but all of them legally obtained.

That's what I work for.

 

[retrofan_k]

Nintendo are protecting their IP and are in their own right to do so. It’s in their Terms & Conditions, regarding any unauthorised device or reverse engineering that circumvents piracy, so it’s nothing new and has always been like that for decades when there was Super Wild Cards and Doctor 64’s.

If the internet existed and the online functionality was there then with the SNES and N64 there would be the same type of bans like there is now, yet instead, devs implemented protection to their games for the likes of Donkey Kong 64 and Jet Force Gemini to make it harder for copying devices to work with them.

However, this generation seems to think it’s not and expects an online pass using a MIG cartridge (a MIG cartridge is a unauthorised device) and is sold for one purpose (piracy).

The whole story of i use it for my own backups is a crock tbh, but some may have some OG carts to dump but the vast majority of owners and the target audience download XCI dumps, so that that is not an excuse.

You use it at your own risk using it online, so if you are banned then that’s on you and not Nintendo’s fault.

 

[emmauss]

Until anything have been tested in law. I don't care what anyone say about a lot of EULA or TOS shit. Because its not set in stone. Law can override most EULAs. I still have hard to believe that its fully legal for them to ban you straight out because you "bought a license" (doesn't work like that in the EU. Since its your OWN device. It would be like WV would stop your car from working because you use fuel from CircleK instead of Gulf.

So talking about these laws doesn't mean anything until a court of law takes them up and weight them against other consumer laws. What law weighs more? Your ownership or the company's "license".

We seen that Apple already gotten slapped a couple of times by the EU, because of consumer laws. Same with Epic winning against Apple for being a monopoly.

So no, enforcing a EULA or TOS isn't set in stone. There is different factors at play. Just saying EULA dictates everything like in the US where you don't own anything really, isn't the same in EU.

We aren't saying the the EULA or TOS is supreme. But that one party is providing a service based on an agreement both parties agree to. And the one who is receiving said services goes against the terms written in the agreement. The offering party has full rights to revoke access to that service. Its simple Contract Law.
Lets say I offer network service to a device, and those using that device agree to use it under certain conditions. Those conditions are fair. If someone who uses that service breaks the conditions we both agree on, I can prevent that person for accessing a service I provide.

 

[DJPlace]

i think not owning something you buy is bullshit has a real thing. (i know if you buy digital games you don't own them) but still...