Confront your own rights against Nintendo!

[emmauss]

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.

I think this is the reason use Atmosphere is safe. As long as you leave the system firmware alone, and just run your homebrew on emmc, you are fine. It's your right to modify the system and run your own apps on it.
The game-key is a portable digital license. But unlike digital codes, it can be used multiple times as long as each usage is unique and not concurrent. But just like digital codes, you need access to the content delivery network to install the game. If that access is revoked due to a breach in license, then you can't download the game, just as you can't access eshop to download games you unlocked with a digital code. This isn't a physical game where the content of the license is given to you on sale.

 

[Lostbhoy]

The fact is you buy it, turn it on and HAVE to agree to it before you get to use it.

The advantage the ninjas have here is.... Who's gonna take them to court over it?? No one has that kind of cash to take them on so again this...

 

[ChibiMofo]

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...

If you don't want to not own something, then don't buy it.

That is your remedy.

 

[AshWeststar]

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.

Nintendo can monitor usage to enforce terms, such as detecting unauthorised hardware, under the GDPR for legitimate interests, including protecting intellectual property. They don't need to prove piracy upfront.

Taking group action against Nintendo for bans is unlikely to succeed. EU law, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, upholds fair terms and a breach for devices which can be used for piracy is considered fair (see the EU study I previously linked). Courts would likely side with Nintendo, given the breach.

Under the EU Software Directive (2009/24/EC), Article 5(2) allows the lawful user to make a backup copy if necessary for the intended use. This right cannot be prevented by contract. But this does not prevent a breach of terms for a service contract.

Under the GDPR (2016/679), companies can process personal data for legitimate interests, including enforcing terms of service and protecting intellectual property, as per Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. For gaming consoles, monitoring might involve collecting data like software versions, game titles, or unique identifiers to detect unauthorised hardware like MIG Switch.

While making backups is legal, using MIG Switch involves circumventing technical protection measures, which is illegal under EU law. The Software Directive, Article 7(1)(c), prohibits distributing or possessing for commercial purposes means to circumvent TPMs. While end-user use isn't explicitly banned, the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC), Article 6, prohibits circumvention of effective TPMs for all works, including computer programs InfoSoc Directive.

Even if not directly illegal under copyright law, using MIG Switch breaches Nintendo's EULA, which prohibits unauthorised devices. The Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC) allows for termination in the event of significant breaches, which this would qualify for (covered in the study I previously linked).

In the EU, class actions are possible under national laws, such as the Representative Actions Directive (2020/1828). Still, success depends on proving that Nintendo's terms are unfair or that bans are unjustified. Given the EULA's clarity in prohibiting unauthorised hardware and the legal basis for TPM protection, courts would likely uphold such bans.

 

[DbGt]

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.

But here they are not banning your account, they are banning your console which then makes it worse. Your fully funciontal account cant access its fully paid games anymore on a device you fully paid but cant use anymore.

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?

what? are you trolling? so if theres suspicion of using piracy thats enough to revoke access??
and yes, of course Nintendo should allow him to get the update or data that is required to access and play his paid physical game. That should always be the case, you should always be able to access your paid digital and physical content

 

[linuxares]

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.

Anything is enforcable. But it depends on laws. Look up the DeCSS as I wrote about.

 

[ChibiMofo]

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

Let me fix that for you:
I just pirate all their video games and never pay to play online.

You aren't protesting anything by stealing. Just be honest like me (proudly flying the black flag since 1985). And you won't be stealing their Switch 2 games because that isn't possible. Sorry!

 

[Marc_LFD]

Let me fix that for you:
I just pirate all their video games and never pay to play online.

You aren't protesting anything by stealing. Just be honest like me (proudly flying the black flag since 1985). And you won't be stealing their Switch 2 games because that isn't possible. Sorry!

Isn't possible.. for now.

 

[Joxy]

-not in english-

 

[aostang]

But here they are not banning your account, they are banning your console which then makes it worse. Your fully funciontal account cant access its fully paid games anymore on a device you fully paid but cant use anymore.



what? are you trolling? so if theres suspicion of using piracy thats enough to revoke access??
and yes, of course Nintendo should allow him to get the update or data that is required to access and play his paid physical game. That should always be the case, you should always be able to access your paid digital and physical content

"Worse" is a matter of perspective. Banning only the console means you don't lose access to your digital purchases if you buy a new console. So at least you still have your games after some financial hit. But it is worse in the fact that you're now stuck selling a console with neutered functionality at a major financial loss. When Sony bans, they actually ban both the account and the console so it's a double-whammy.

 

[emmauss]

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.

Minors can't enter legally binding contracts, but they can enter voidable contracts. Contracts where a guardian can void without repercussion to the minor in most cases, when it's fair. License agreements fall under this. Nintendo doesn't expect anything from you when you void the license, unlike how a business contract would request payment for breaking a clause. But when the contract is void, Nintendo no longer has to provide services to the contractee.

 

[ChibiMofo]

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

You are missing the point. It IS okay for them to do that. People who knowingly break the law and/or the legally-binding terms they agreed to DESERVE to be banned and not have updates or access to the eShop or any other services that Nintendo provides legitimate, law-abiding, terms-abiding customers. That is normal, not wild. And that is why everyone is defending Nintendo. They are in the right. No like it? No buy from Nintendo. Problem solved; no irrational and incessant incel gamerboy whining necessary.

 

[linuxares]

The game-key is a portable digital license.

Nah, its a physical key (but yes, its a "license" on the card). If I understand the consumer law right I could get my money back for it at least because I could tell the store "hey it doesn't work on my Switch 2".

 

[emmauss]

Nah, its a physical key (but yes, its a "license" on the card). If I understand the consumer law right I could get my money back for it at least because I could tell the store "hey it doesn't work on my Switch 2".

Yeah. You could even sell it to someone else. because the key itself isn't tampered and is still valid. Unlike a digital code. The only downside to the physical key is there's no game data to back up. So on the low chance that a way to natively backup and play your own backups is found for the switch 2, you can not back up the key.

 

[linuxares]

-not in english-​

He is Mexican (according to the flag). He won't speak swedish?

 

[AshWeststar]

-not in english-

You are confusing service contracts with software licenses. It is simultaneously possible for both parties to be operating legally. As it may be legal for you to make or play backups. However, it is also legal for a company to revoke your access to their service (not your local hardware/software) to combat piracy by revoking access to systems and accounts that have used tools that can be used for piracy.

 

[Viri]

Let me fix that for you:
I just pirate all their video games and never pay to play online.

You aren't protesting anything by stealing. Just be honest like me (proudly flying the black flag since 1985). And you won't be stealing their Switch 2 games because that isn't possible. Sorry!

Yup, I pirate all my video games, and give 0 fucks. I just call it "protesting" because I can. And I WILL be pirating Switch 2 games SOONER or LATER, and there is nothing Nintendo can do to stop me.

 

[Lostbhoy]

Let me fix that for you:
I just pirate all their video games and never pay to play online.

You aren't protesting anything by stealing. Just be honest like me (proudly flying the black flag since 1985). And you won't be stealing their Switch 2 games because that isn't possible. Sorry!

Piracy isn't theft blah blah

 

[CMDreamer]

[...] but removing you access to your bought digital and physical games is not ok at all. [...]

It's not only about Nintendo, but each and every product creator out there.

He still can play his games, but on a non-banned Switch/Switch 2 console, so he's not taken out of his digital nor physical content access.

If you view the follow thru video, you will see this.

The device involved on the EULA's violation was banned from online access, that's it.

Even online PC gaming work in a very similar way and players can get their access banned from the online gaming platform if being discovered cheating in any way. How's that diferent from gaming console's?

 

[Joxy]

Yes, of course, private copying is wrong. It harms their company, and they lose what drives the world today: money. We humans need money for all the hours we work, so of course, it harms Nintendo. But by punishing those with disabilities by blocking Datel or all cheat devices, Nintendo has also led to their consoles being modified for that reason. Then, yes, there is also private copying. One thing that significantly contributes to this is the ridiculous policies of countries not to release certain games, movies, and music everywhere, and that's where it all begins. But there are those who make backups or dumps of their games to make them perhaps harder, more fun, and so on for personal use, as long as you don’t share the modified game files. Unfortunately, this is where the error arises that creates the duality in private copying.