Confront your own rights against Nintendo!

[lwiz]

Actually, in Europe Nintendo has no right of sniffing (legal) usage of MIGswitch and is something owners can (and should) take group legal action against. Especially if banned due running games they own.

 

[linuxares]

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.

In fact, I do own the digital goods. As in if they remove it, they need to either restore it or give me my money back. EU solved a lot about that thanks to the Digital Content Directive.

I can do a lot with the file for example if said agreement say I can download it. I can freely do whatever I want with it unless it say something else. Most likely it will have a DRM which makes it secured.

It's the same with how DeCSS is legal. It's a slippery slop how it works. It's technically illegal according to the EUs copyright law, but it's in a grey area.

I asked Gemini about it to get a pretty good summary, so we could argue that the TPM of Switch games are easy to bypass, is it really effective:

This is a very insightful question that touches upon a complex and often debated area of copyright law, particularly in the EU, where there's a strong emphasis on balancing copyright protection with user rights and interoperability.

The simple answer is: Generally, no, it is not legal to remove DRM in the EU without specific, narrow exceptions.

The key difference from the DeCSS case, and why it's not a blanket "DeCSS is legal, so all DRM removal is legal," lies in the details of EU copyright law, specifically the EU Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC, often called the "InfoSoc Directive").

Here's a breakdown:

1. The EU Copyright Directive and Anti-Circumvention:

• Article 6 of the EU Copyright Directive requires Member States to provide "adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures".1
  
  
• It also requires protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertising, or possession for commercial purposes of devices or services that are primarily designed or marketed for circumvention.
• "Effective technological measures" (TPMs) are defined as any technology, device, or component that, in its normal operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorized by the rights holder (e.g., encryption, scrambling, copy control).

2. Why DeCSS was "Legal" (or at least, its distribution was deemed permissible in some EU contexts):

The DeCSS case, particularly in various European courts (like the Finnish ruling referenced in the search results), was highly contentious and had specific nuances:

• "Effectiveness" of CSS: A key argument in some EU cases was whether CSS (the DRM on DVDs) was truly an "effective" technological measure, given that DeCSS had widely broken it years ago. If a TPM is no longer "effective," then its circumvention might not be subject to the full prohibition of the Directive.
• Interoperability: One of the original motivations for DeCSS was to allow DVDs to be played on Linux systems, where there were no licensed DVD players. This touched upon the concept of interoperability, which is a recognized principle in EU law, particularly for software.
• Balancing Rights: The EU's approach often seeks to balance the rights of copyright holders with certain user rights and public interest exceptions (like private copying, research, accessibility for disabled persons).2 The concern was that DRM could effectively nullify these legal exceptions if there was no way to exercise them.
  

3. The Crucial Distinctions for General DRM Removal Today:

• Effectiveness: Most modern DRMs (like those on streaming services or digital games) are much more robust and constantly updated than CSS was. It's much harder to argue they are "ineffective" in the same way.
• Purpose of Circumvention:
  • Copyright Infringement: If the primary purpose of removing DRM is to make unauthorized copies, share them, or engage in piracy, it is unequivocally illegal.
  • Commercial Purposes: Creating or distributing tools for DRM circumvention for commercial gain is explicitly prohibited by the Directive.
  • Personal Use / "Format Shifting": This is the biggest grey area and where the tension lies. Many consumers argue they should be able to make a personal backup copy or convert a file for use on a different device they own. While some EU countries do have "private copying" exceptions, the problem is that circumventing DRM to exercise that exception is often still illegal due to the anti-circumvention provisions. The EU Copyright Directive does include a provision (Article 6(4)) for Member States to ensure that beneficiaries of certain exceptions can still benefit from them even if TPMs exist, but the implementation of this has been inconsistent and often involves complex redress mechanisms rather than a direct right for users to circumvent DRM themselves.
• Legitimate Exceptions (Narrow):The EU Copyright Directive does allow for certain exceptions to the anti-circumvention rules, but they are typically very narrow and specific, such as for:
  • Research: Security research into DRM itself.
  • Interoperability: To achieve interoperability of independently created computer programs (as seen in the UsedSoft v. Oracle case for software, but this doesn't automatically extend to content like movies).
  • Accessibility for Disabled Persons: To enable access to copyrighted works for persons with disabilities where no suitable alternative exists.
  • Law Enforcement/Security: For legitimate law enforcement or government security purposes.

Conclusion:

While the DeCSS case created a significant precedent and highlighted the tensions around DRM, it does not mean that removing any and all DRM in the EU is legal.

The general rule under the EU Copyright Directive is that circumventing effective technological measures (DRM) is illegal, as is the commercial trade in circumvention tools. There are narrow, specific exceptions, and the "effectiveness" of the DRM itself can be a factor.

For most consumers wanting to strip DRM from a movie or game simply to make a backup or use it on an unsupported device, they are likely operating in a legally grey area, where the technical act of circumvention is prohibited, even if their ultimate purpose is non-infringing. The enforcement focus tends to be on those who create and distribute circumvention tools or engage in large-scale piracy rather than individual users, but the letter of the law still exists.

 

[emmauss]

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...

This is just simple IP law. You own something, you can make copies of it and distribute. That's the owner's right, the right to copy. That right to copy is not transfered to you from one person to another unless there's explicit agreement between both parties that you are gaining the right to copy. You are free to transfer any right given to you by the producer, and when you buy a product, the right you get is the right to use. You become a user. You can give that right to anyone, but you forfeit that right yourself. Physical games work on this rules. Digital games don't, because being able to transfer your license requires that you are able to copy the product, which you do not have the rights to.
So, you own the right to use, but not the right to copy.

 

[linuxares]

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.

Here is the thing, whom owns the license? If you signed up and made an account on my Switch 2. Did you or I violate the agreement?

 

[Viri]

I just protest it by pirating all their video games, and never paying to play online.

 

[Velorian]

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

Or they already do work, make money, and buy games, and also enjoy researching topics that they enjoy.

 

[emmauss]

Here is the thing, whom owns the license? If you signed up and made an account on my Switch 2. Did you or I violate the agreement?

The nintendo switch allows multiple users to be registered and active on it. The license is given to each person whose account is on the device. You, the owner of the device, aren't given them your license to use the nintendo services. You are giving them access to the license they have by accepting the user license agreement.

 

[aostang]

In fact, I do own the digital goods. As in if they remove it, they need to either restore it or give me my money back. EU solved a lot about that thanks to the Digital Content Directive.

I can do a lot with the file for example if said agreement say I can download it. I can freely do whatever I want with it unless it say something else. Most likely it will have a DRM which makes it secured.

It's the same with how DeCSS is legal. It's a slippery slop how it works. It's technically illegal according to the EUs copyright law, but it's in a grey area.

I asked Gemini about it to get a pretty good summary, so we could argue that the TPM of Switch games are easy to bypass, is it really effective:

This is a very insightful question that touches upon a complex and often debated area of copyright law, particularly in the EU, where there's a strong emphasis on balancing copyright protection with user rights and interoperability.

The simple answer is: Generally, no, it is not legal to remove DRM in the EU without specific, narrow exceptions.

The key difference from the DeCSS case, and why it's not a blanket "DeCSS is legal, so all DRM removal is legal," lies in the details of EU copyright law, specifically the EU Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC, often called the "InfoSoc Directive").

Here's a breakdown:

1. The EU Copyright Directive and Anti-Circumvention:

• Article 6 of the EU Copyright Directive requires Member States to provide "adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures".1
  
  
• It also requires protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertising, or possession for commercial purposes of devices or services that are primarily designed or marketed for circumvention.
• "Effective technological measures" (TPMs) are defined as any technology, device, or component that, in its normal operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorized by the rights holder (e.g., encryption, scrambling, copy control).

2. Why DeCSS was "Legal" (or at least, its distribution was deemed permissible in some EU contexts):

The DeCSS case, particularly in various European courts (like the Finnish ruling referenced in the search results), was highly contentious and had specific nuances:

• "Effectiveness" of CSS: A key argument in some EU cases was whether CSS (the DRM on DVDs) was truly an "effective" technological measure, given that DeCSS had widely broken it years ago. If a TPM is no longer "effective," then its circumvention might not be subject to the full prohibition of the Directive.
• Interoperability: One of the original motivations for DeCSS was to allow DVDs to be played on Linux systems, where there were no licensed DVD players. This touched upon the concept of interoperability, which is a recognized principle in EU law, particularly for software.
• Balancing Rights: The EU's approach often seeks to balance the rights of copyright holders with certain user rights and public interest exceptions (like private copying, research, accessibility for disabled persons).2 The concern was that DRM could effectively nullify these legal exceptions if there was no way to exercise them.

3. The Crucial Distinctions for General DRM Removal Today:

• Effectiveness: Most modern DRMs (like those on streaming services or digital games) are much more robust and constantly updated than CSS was. It's much harder to argue they are "ineffective" in the same way.
• Purpose of Circumvention:
  • Copyright Infringement: If the primary purpose of removing DRM is to make unauthorized copies, share them, or engage in piracy, it is unequivocally illegal.
  • Commercial Purposes: Creating or distributing tools for DRM circumvention for commercial gain is explicitly prohibited by the Directive.
  • Personal Use / "Format Shifting": This is the biggest grey area and where the tension lies. Many consumers argue they should be able to make a personal backup copy or convert a file for use on a different device they own. While some EU countries do have "private copying" exceptions, the problem is that circumventing DRM to exercise that exception is often still illegal due to the anti-circumvention provisions. The EU Copyright Directive does include a provision (Article 6(4)) for Member States to ensure that beneficiaries of certain exceptions can still benefit from them even if TPMs exist, but the implementation of this has been inconsistent and often involves complex redress mechanisms rather than a direct right for users to circumvent DRM themselves.
• Legitimate Exceptions (Narrow):The EU Copyright Directive does allow for certain exceptions to the anti-circumvention rules, but they are typically very narrow and specific, such as for:
  • Research: Security research into DRM itself.
  • Interoperability: To achieve interoperability of independently created computer programs (as seen in the UsedSoft v. Oracle case for software, but this doesn't automatically extend to content like movies).
  • Accessibility for Disabled Persons: To enable access to copyrighted works for persons with disabilities where no suitable alternative exists.
  • Law Enforcement/Security: For legitimate law enforcement or government security purposes.

Conclusion:

While the DeCSS case created a significant precedent and highlighted the tensions around DRM, it does not mean that removing any and all DRM in the EU is legal.

The general rule under the EU Copyright Directive is that circumventing effective technological measures (DRM) is illegal, as is the commercial trade in circumvention tools. There are narrow, specific exceptions, and the "effectiveness" of the DRM itself can be a factor.

For most consumers wanting to strip DRM from a movie or game simply to make a backup or use it on an unsupported device, they are likely operating in a legally grey area, where the technical act of circumvention is prohibited, even if their ultimate purpose is non-infringing. The enforcement focus tends to be on those who create and distribute circumvention tools or engage in large-scale piracy rather than individual users, but the letter of the law still exists.

The OS is secured by DRM, and thus you can't just "do whatever you want with it" in Europe. Also, software can come with a license clearly stating what you can and cannot do with it. You also don't own the intellectual property and do not automatically gain redistribution rights, for example. Even in Europe, there are still legal means that Nintendo can fall back on in this scenario. At most, they'd be required to return the Switch 2 to a factory sold state that plays games offline. They're not required to unban that specific system from their online services.

 

[emmauss]

Here is the thing, whom owns the license? If you signed up and made an account on my Switch 2. Did you or I violate the agreement?

Also, the owner of the device is lending any user of the device access to their games on that device. it's juts like desktop software that allows you to buy an app and install it for everyone using that pc. it's still 1 copy you have, but you are allowing other to use your license it on a registered system.

 

[DbGt]

Why is everyone defending Nintendo? You are missing the point, yes, they can ban you from further using their services if you break their TOS, but removing you access to your bought digital and physical games is not ok at all. That is rendering your fully paid device and games useless. You cant load (into the system) nor download your paid and owned virtual game cards anymore. You cant play your bought physical games if they required an update anymore. That is not ok and should be illegal. You should be able to always have access to your already bought digital and physical games

Like what happened to this guy, he cant play anymore his physical copy of breath of the wild on switch 2 anymore as it requires an update and cant get that update due to being banned. That is wild

 

[Joxy]

I can also add that Nintendo has always been the harshest, while Sega has been the softest when it comes to cheating. It is understandable from their perspective that they block online play or digital purchases from the eShop. However, it is the offline aspect that I see as the real problem here. I have two Nintendo Switch consoles; one is completely original for me to play on and to be online, while the other is offline because it is modified. My Wii U was also modified, but it was still possible to buy games on the eShop without Nintendo banning it, which highlights a disturbing shift in their policy. So, I stand up for my son's rights to play games offline and am 100% against online cheating. It's the same as if I were to play the lottery and cheat to win; that is not right. I cannot compete with the real pros out there either, but my son would never even be able to face them. Therefore, he has learned that there are certain games – even if I help him online with my own character in World of Warcraft and similar games – that he cannot manage and therefore abstains from. I tell him that there is a limit, and there is not much I can do about it, as it is not the same thing. But for him not to be able to play any game just because Nintendo does not approve of offline play, effectively denying people with disabilities the chance to fully experience and enjoy games, is pure discrimination.

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2025

Why is everyone defending Nintendo? You are missing the point, yes, they can ban you from further using their services if you break their TOS, but removing you access to your bought digital and physical games is not ok at all. That is rendering your fully paid device useless. You cant load (into the system) nor download your paid and owned virtual game cards anymore. You cant play your bought physical games if they required an update anymore. That is not ok and should be illegal. You should be able to always have access to your already bought digital and physical games

Like what happened to this guy, he cant play anymore his physical copy of breath of the wild on switch 2 anymore as it requires an update and cant get that update due to being banned. That is wild

Exactly,

 

[linuxares]

The OS is secured by DRM, and thus you can't just "do whatever you want with it" in Europe. Also, software can come with a license clearly stating what you can and cannot do with it. You also don't own the intellectual property and do not automatically gain redistribution rights, for example. Even in Europe, there are still legal means that Nintendo can fall back on in this scenario. At most, they'd be required to return the Switch 2 to a factory sold state that plays games offline. They're not required to unban that specific system from their online services.

In fact, it depends. Why do I need to bypass the DRM? What is the reason for it? Is it to install Linux? Is it to just play around with it?

I own the device, therefore I can do whatever I want with it. Sure I can't do whatever I want with the OS since that is a copyright issue. Same with for example the MigSwitch. It's an piracy device, therefore they banned people for accessing the Nintendo services. But the question is, according to law. How far is the ban okey? If I buy a game-key game, which requires me to download the game. Since the cartridges is missing the game.

For me this is a function ban, therefore it might violate the EU's consumer law. I bought the physical game, therefore I own the game. Which should mean Nintendo must give me access to said game.

 

[aostang]

Why is everyone defending Nintendo? You are missing the point, yes, they can ban you from further using their services if you break their TOS, but removing you access to your bought digital and physical games is not ok at all. That is rendering your fully paid device useless. You cant load (into the system) nor download your paid and owned virtual game cards anymore. You cant play your bought physical games if they required an update anymore. That is not ok and should be illegal. You should be able to always have access to your already bought digital and physical games

Like what happened to this guy, he cant play anymore his physical copy of breath of the wild on switch 2 anymore as it requires an update and cant get that update due to being banned. That is wild

While I don't agree with it, Nintendo aren't the first ones where you lose your digital purchases when an account is banned and you lose access to an online storefront. Sony has been doing this for a long time and so far nobody has legally challenged them enough to get a case with a verdict. I generally agree with the "you effed around, you found out" when it comes to hacking, but I firmly disagree with losing access to your previous purchases because of it. I've been waiting for someone to challenge that one for a while. Maybe this will be a tipping point, though there are probably very few people in Nintendo's case with the Switch 2 because it all happened in the first couple days and the alarms went out telling people to stop before they had a chance to even try.

 

[emmauss]

Why is everyone defending Nintendo? You are missing the point, yes, they can ban you from further using their services if you break their TOS, but removing you access to your bought digital and physical games is not ok at all. That is rendering your fully paid device useless. You cant load (into the system) nor download your paid and owned virtual game cards anymore. You cant play your bought physical games if they required an update anymore. That is not ok and should be illegal.

Like what happened to this guy, he cant play anymore his physical copy of breath of the wild on switch 2 anymore as it requires an update and cant get that update due to being banned. That is wild

They should play on their switch 1 then. Even if he bought that game, the fact that there's suspicion of them using piracy is enough to revoke access to the network. If he had updated his system and game before using the flashcart, nintendo won't be able to delete his data. Would you then say nintendo should allow him to gain access to future updates when he has broken their license agreement?

 

[ChibiMofo]

So, what are you gonna do?

Absolutely nothing.

Except bitch and moan about terms he has agreed to according to the EULA.

 

[linuxares]

The nintendo switch allows multiple users to be registered and active on it. The license is given to each person whose account is on the device. You, the owner of the device, aren't given them your license to use the nintendo services. You are giving them access to the license they have by accepting the user license agreement.

Want a hard ball then? I own the device, but I'm 16. I cannot legally enter a contract with Nintendo, PSN or hell even Steam in the EU if we gonna follow laws. But it's still fine for these companies to allow that access? Since they try to follow US law which is basically COPPA they try to agree with.

It's a really hard and its still up to court to decide decide when a EULA is above the consumer protection.

 

[Ettino]

 

[aostang]

In fact, it depends. Why do I need to bypass the DRM? What is the reason for it? Is it to install Linux? Is it to just play around with it?

I own the device, therefore I can do whatever I want with it. Sure I can't do whatever I want with the OS since that is a copyright issue. Same with for example the MigSwitch. It's an piracy device, therefore they banned people for accessing the Nintendo services. But the question is, according to law. How far is the ban okey? If I buy a game-key game, which requires me to download the game. Since the cartridges is missing the game.

For me this is a function ban, therefore it might violate the EU's consumer law. I bought the physical game, therefore I own the game. Which should mean Nintendo must give me access to said game.

Not disagreeing with you on any of this, in fact see my previous post just before this. I firmly believe the hardware is yours and you can do whatever the eff you want with it. I also agree that any software license you purchased should remain yours unless your money is returned (grey area on depreciated value). I think Nintendo is really opening themselves up too much to legal action if they start bricking consoles to the point that physical games no longer work offline. We'll have to see what plays out with digital purchases.

 

[linuxares]

Not disagreeing with you on any of this, in fact see my previous post just before this. I firmly believe the hardware is yours and you can do whatever the eff you want with it. I also agree that any software license you purchased should remain yours unless your money is returned (grey area on depreciated value). I think Nintendo is really opening themselves up too much to legal action if they start bricking consoles to the point that physical games no longer work offline. We'll have to see what plays out with digital purchases.

Yeah, I really want consumer laws to check it up. I honestly personally of course, feel if you own said games. a Backup cart should be legal. But its the TPM that cause said cart to be illegal.

 

[ChibiMofo]

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.

You know very well that Epic defeating Apple in court has absolutely nothing whatsoever with the issues in this thread. A total red herring. The EULA is all that matters in this case, and has been proven to be enforceable in the US and the EU (and Britain). You have a whole lot of wishful thinking on your side and no legal argument whatsoever. You are dreaming for a day when someone successfully challenges this, and while that is theoretically possible, that is NOT the law TODAY. And what it is today is all that matters today.
And tomorrow.