Confront your own rights against Nintendo!

[Dark_Ansem]

Dumb question: whats stopping people with banned consoles to sell them and buy a new one? Assuming the ban is console- based and not account-based.

 

[LuminousGaze]

My solution is I am just never going to buy a Switch 2. Nintendo has long been anti-end-user/anti-customer, and all of this is just the latest push in that direction. When it comes time for the Switch 3 or whatever comes next, they'll just push even further.

 

[emmauss]

Incorrect. It is NOT okay for Nintendo to do. Nintendo must allow banned consoles to play all purchased games. Majority of Switch 2 games being digital & not physical releases makes it illegal for Nintendo to ban Switch 2 consoles. It does not matter if a user violates the EULA/TOS or not. Sony already tried this with the digital only PS5 & lost in court. You can not ban a digital only console because it is the equivalent to bricking the console. That is the only reason why Sony released a revision of the PS5 that can have a disc drive added.

What law case are you referring to? From the little search I did, it was a law case filed in Brazil by a woman using her playstation to buy PS Plus Collection for others for a fee. This was a console ban, and until the case was concluded, she lost access to PSN. She won the case not because the banning was illegal, but because Sony didn't make it clear in any way that selling PS Plus access, though restricted, could lead to a ban. The injunction did not end with Sony unbanning every PS5 that was banned in Brazil, because the case declared that Sony didn't warn user of the punishment for sharing PSN access, and not that banning online only consoles was against consumer rights when the ban was due to breaking the TOS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/lirk4c/sony_faces_new_loss_in_legal_case_in_brazil/
This is different from the console ban people are getting from nintendo. Nintendo rarely does account bans. You don't lose your purchases or account when you get a console ban. The switch is also not a digital only device. The console bans are due to people using a device that could compromise the console security to run pirated games.

Post automatically merged: Jun 23, 2025

Dumb question: whats stopping people with banned consoles to sell them and buy a new one? Assuming the ban is console- based and not account-based.

Absolutely nothing. And in most cases, the shop would return the console to a nearby return factory of nintendo for reflashing. Their account is not banned.

 

[Skv0ra]

Absolutely nothing. And in most cases, the shop would return the console to a nearby return factory of nintendo for reflashing. Their account is not banned.

Better question is what shop would buy a banned console? Used brick & mortars would have zero interest in that, nor can they get systems refurbed; major stores would pay absolute pennies or and again, outright refuse knowing about the issue.

Then we just loop back to - mod chips and hacks, would not allow for the main point of legit gaming today - online access, so those solutions are still half-baked overall. In general, we're just getting into that present where gaming hardware corpos have finally tightened their bootstraps on piracy almost all the way, and there isn't much to do besides avoid certain brands entirely if the way they do business doesn't sit right with you. Simultaneously, we're also in the present day of pretty vast access and relative freedom of PCs thanks to console race to catch up to the PC performance drove their prices up closer to a semi-potato PC that now receives most of the previously-exclusive console titles.

 

[Asia81]

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

7.8/10 Too Much text
I thought it was the apple pie recipe

 

[kikisland]

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.

Maybe but taking Nintendo to court when they have deep pockets isn’t as easy as you’d think. They haven’t stopped me from cheating, I load the save to a hacked switch and transfer it to a non hacked switch and even edit game saves on a pc.

If you were super paranoid you’d look at the network level and look in the logs for which Nintendo servers are accessing your network and just block them at a dns level using adguard and yeah I’m disabled and I am smart about my gaming modding. It’s only going to get easier in time with more and more games being cross platform which means you can mod the pc version and sync it with any console like Xbox Sony etc.

The one thing I will say is that the main reason they are banning people is for using a mig switch and I think that’s on shady grounds legally because you have a right to back up the content that you own and many users want more games on a single cart so you don’t have to risk travelling with your game collection.

If I was rich I’d throw some money at a lawsuit but if you didn’t win paying their legal costs is gonna hurt.

The stronger argument against a ban for disabled people like me would be discrimination as their actions (Nintendo) impacts us more as disabled people, for autistic people being banned or even having the device bricked by Nintendo would be taking away the system or access and it would severely impact an autistic person and would be disproportionate but you’d have 6 months to bring such a case from what I remember.

The bigger picture is that we are steering towards a society where ownership of anything isn’t going to be rare, a digital library can and will be revoked and content removed, devices eventually you won’t own, possibly by terms and conditions of that’s not happened already and software and games will probably become a monthly subscription so will everything else and people are enabling this by supporting this kind of behaviour from giants like Nintendo

 

[Jayro]

I bought the physical game, therefore I own the game. Which should mean Nintendo must give me access to said game.

This.

This needs protected under consumer rights. None of that "Well ackt-chew-ully, you bought a license to play the game, and we revoked your license." bullshit.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Nintendo can ban your console or account for any reason they deem fit. You do not have any legal grounds to sue them for a ban.

"How dare you not update OUR console, so we're going to ban the device."

- Nintendo, probably.

 

[Skelletonike]

Yeah, I honestly do not care.
I will not do anything illegal on my Switch 2, haven't done anything to my Switch either (no reason to while the system is still being supported).

Nintendo is just banning the online services, which they are in their right of doing. If you play with fire you get burnt. Also, if you think that banning this... Miniscule amount of users will have any impact... It won't.

Anyway, I'm tired, barely slept anything so I won't mince my words. If people were stupid enough to use the Mig Switch on a Switch 2, a new system, they deserve to be banned. Stupidity is not free from consequences.

 

[Ondrashek06]

"How dare you not update OUR console, so we're going to ban the device."

- Nintendo, probably.

Banning you for not updating is absurd, however it is still within Nintendo's rights to do so.
The console is yours, but the online services the console connects to are Nintendo's property.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

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.

Nice AI slop.

 

[der:Tom]

I think many of you are missing one crucial point in the whole discussion: There is just no legal way to dump a Nintendo Switch cartridge. Doesn't matter if you use a CFW Switch or the Mig dumper, you have to use Nintendos Keys to decrypt the game data and that's forbidden.
Yes there is the right for a private copy in many countries BUT you are not allowed to hack/break the copy protection to get a private copy.
So it doesn't matter if you've got a "perfect dump with all certs", since there is no legal way to get even your own personal games on the SD for the Mig Nintendo can just ban you for using Mig, doesn't matter what's on it.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

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.

I don't think it's that black and white. Say you buy a piece of art. You then own that physical piece of art and you can do whatever you want with it. Burn it, paint over it, whatever you like. But you don't own the artwork itself, so you aren't allowed to make copies of it. But it's still ownership in some form and that grants you certain rights. Ownership doesn't have to be absolute. It doesn't have to be either full rights or zero rights.
Nobody ever thought buying a game gave you the legal right to make copies of it, or what have you. That's just an excuse the industry is using to justify changing the terminology. Corporations want us to have zero rights. That's why they're changing the terminology right under our noses, so we'll stop thinking of it as owning and get used to having no rights. And that just ain't right.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2025

I think many of you are missing one crucial point in the whole discussion: There is just no legal way to dump a Nintendo Switch cartridge. Doesn't matter if you use a CFW Switch or the Mig dumper, you have to use Nintendos Keys to decrypt the game data and that's forbidden.
Yes there is the right for a private copy in many countries BUT you are not allowed to hack/break the copy protection to get a private copy.
So it doesn't matter if you've got a "perfect dump with all certs", since there is no legal way to get even your own personal games on the SD for the Mig Nintendo can just ban you for using Mig, doesn't matter what's on it.

You don't have to decrypt anything in order to dump games. The game has to be decrypted in order to play, but the console itself handles that.
Also, it has been shown that encryption keys are not copyrightable.

 

[emmauss]

I don't think it's that black and white. Say you buy a piece of art. You then own that physical piece of art and you can do whatever you want with it. Burn it, paint over it, whatever you like. But you don't own the artwork itself, so you aren't allowed to make copies of it. But it's still ownership in some form and that grants you certain rights. Ownership doesn't have to be absolute. It doesn't have to be either full rights or zero rights.
Nobody ever thought buying a game gave you the legal right to make copies of it, or what have you. That's just an excuse the industry is using to justify changing the terminology. Corporations want us to have zero rights. That's why they're changing the terminology right under our noses, so we'll stop thinking of it as owning and get used to having no rights. And that just ain't right.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2025

You don't have to decrypt anything in order to dump games. The game has to be decrypted in order to play, but the console itself handles that.
Also, it has been shown that encryption keys are not copyrightable.

You are quite right. But trust me, many people still think you get full rights over an item they purchased, including copy rights. The law provides basic ownership rights over the physical item. If someone steals the item, they can and will be punished by the law.
I had to differentiate what rights people have on purchase by using the terms "owner" and "user" in the context of this thread. Even if one buys a physical cart with the full game on it, they get the full physical purchase rights without copy rights, they are technically the owner in this respect, but they are still held by the terms of use that was declared at purchase of the cart within the scope of available laws. This becomes much more complex when it comes to software licenses and rights.

 

[Joxy]

Private copying is wrong? So regardless if people buy a product, they can't make copies for their own private use... Okeh.

Any corpo bootlickers (not talking about you, Joxy) can take a hike about how it hurts their favorite companies.

So, you’re misunderstanding me. For Nintendo or the film industries, all copying is wrong and illegal, but at the same time, I also think it’s really crazy to throw away a bunch of money that you’ve worked hard for and then not even own your games, movies, and consoles. At least Sony and Microsoft only block their users from multiplayer and internet access to their shop. But you can still play the games offline – whether you get an upgrade to the game is another question? So of course I’m on the people’s side – buying something that they don’t own should be just as illegal, and I think it’s very strange that Nintendo is even allowed to do that in the US and Europe.

Post automatically merged: Jun 25, 2025

Nice AI slop.

And? What is wrong with AI helping to do deep dives and putting all my information into that? I'm not afraid of AI like many people are. I’m using it just this time. AI will get smarter and will surpass us humans anyway in the future. So why shouldn’t we use it when we can?

Post automatically merged: Jun 25, 2025

lol id like to see someone email this to them and ask for unban

Post automatically merged: Jun 22, 2025

mig and r4 are definitely developed for piracy

I understand your point of view and what that module is for; I don’t have such a product and I’m not going to buy or use it either. But at the same time, you actually seem to not understand that the USA and Europe have more power than little Japan. If Nintendo were to receive sufficient complaints, the USA or Europe could take them to court and they are unlikely to win if it concerns violating sales laws about owning your product after purchase and having the right to do what you want with it, except for what Nintendo actually controls! Such as their server for online gaming, purchasing games, or other things from them. They even get to decide on updates and game updates! That is what they can control, because it is about copying your games and putting them on the internet that I think should not be done. But to brick your entire console, they have no right to that, and it doesn’t matter what you say about it. The Japanese population being punished and imprisoned for modifying their own consoles is outright dictatorship! So Japan’s laws have no power outside of Japan. If Nintendo wants to make money outside of Japan, they must also accept the rights and laws of those countries!

Post automatically merged: Jun 25, 2025

"My son should not be discriminated against" LMFAO!! You're an idiot yes? Disability, no disability, it's irrelevant when it comes to video games. Your son is no exception. Your son has to abide by the EULA/TOS just like everyone else.

You really make me start to wonder what’s going on in your head. You’re calling me an idiot, just because I want my child with a disability to have access to a handicap mode or cheats? None of Action Replay, GameShark, Xploder, or Game Genie has ever damaged Nintendo. Their nonsense about the devices harming the system is just ridiculous. But if the devices did break the system, of course Nintendo shouldn’t have to pay for the damage!

Nintendo should really watch themselves, because Japan’s weak regulations have no power over the US or Europe! Nintendo is the one who’s going to lose the most here, because this could turn into a serious legal case, and not even little Japan can protect Nintendo’s nonsense. What Nintendo is doing is illegal! Once someone buys a product, Nintendo no longer has control over what they do with it. What they do control is their servers, and if you’re banned, that means you can’t buy their games online, play online, or receive updates.

At least Sony and Microsoft aren’t as inhumane as Nintendo. My son doesn’t even play online! He knows he can’t handle it! So for you to sit there and call me an idiot, maybe that’s because you’re the real idiot. But I can promise you that those with Asperger's/Autism will defeat the Nintendo Switch 2 console and will find a loophole very soon, and that is actually Nintendo's own fault.

 

[Gbasam64]

Dumb question: whats stopping people with banned consoles to sell them and buy a new one? Assuming the ban is console- based and not account-based.

Honestly, if I were Nintendo, I would just ban the account and the console. But the console ban does make it a problem for the 2nd hand market.

 

[weatMod]

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 general rule under the EU Copyright Directive is that circumventing effective technological measures (DRM) is illegal, "

Wow what a self defeating statement that is
I wonder if that is actually their official language because if it is then

It shouldn't take Perry Mason to figure this one out.

I mean if the "technological measures" can be "circumvented" then they are not very effective are they (and also by very definition NOT " effective" )

 

[Gbasam64]

"The general rule under the EU Copyright Directive is that circumventing effective technological measures (DRM) is illegal, "

Wow what self defeating statement that is
I wonder if that is actually their official language because if it is then

It shouldn't take Perry Mason to figure this one out.

I mean if the "technological measures" can be "circumvented" then they are not very effective are they (and also by very definition NOT " effective"

You are absolutely right, would be funny if this would pass in court.

effective
/ɪˈfɛktɪv/

adjective
adjective: effective

1. 1.
   successful in producing a desired or intended result.

 

[Kioku]

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.

What bothers me the most about a EULA is the amount of people who are afraid to challenge it. Whether its due to financial issues or just not wanting to set a bad precedent. We're at the point where companies are so sure of themselves that they'll tack on whatever they want in their agreements and we just go along with it. At some point it'll be challenged. Hopefully sooner than later.

 

[Gbasam64]

I think Nintendo has every right to fight piracy, but they are doing hard even to regular consumers which I don’t think is right.