Homebrew Companies (Like Nintendo) Might have just been put up against a wall.

[hiten]

All of a sudden, everyone on gbatemp is a lawyer

GBAtemp has always been the place for the finest minds of our generation. Lawyer, hacker, game developer, you name it

 

[Redferne]

Are you sure? I recall reading somewhere that the Wii had bricking code in one of it's updates specifically targeting users of The Homebrew Channel. It did get some non-homebrew users though...

Yes we are sure, the team who made the hack explained how.

 

[Dimensional]

The case actually dealt with the right for a 3rd party to fix and/or sell refurbished parts. The Court ruling opens the doors for mom and pop shops to be able fix your broken game systems without fear of legal repercussions, taking away the profits and monopoly of system repairs from companies like the Big N.

It also has the potential to allow users like us to resell our digital only content to others, if worked on further. Being able to do things like resell some of our Steam library for example, giving up our copy of the games.

 

[SANIC]

By "seizing their property back at any moment." Are you referring to Nintendo's policy of coming to someones front door step and asking them for your Nintendo console for "unauthorized software" ???

Actually now that I think about that it seems weird but funny at the same time lol. And of course i'm just joking lmao

Wii would like to size your 3DS

 

[Skelletonike]

Servers and so on require a constant flow of money.
If you go against their terms, they have every right to ban you from online services, the system may be yours, the online services are not.
It's something like a 'bonus' of sorts, which you don't deserve if you're naughty.

 

[Foxi4]

Seriously? Before jumping on people try to read...

I broke the ToS? Prove it. If you can't or won't, you're the one breaking the EULA by not giving a service we agreed on. But it is completely rhetorical as I said because the EULA specify that Nintendo reserve itself the right to ban whoever they want whenever they want. That's the part that I would consider abusive. Of course to play that card you'd better not have broken the ToS or EULA because obviously Nintendo can prove you used unauthorized software.

Yes, I expected a code that specifically says that I'm banned because I used unauthorized software instead of a generic code which explanation differs from a country to another.

And just to be even clearer, I'm not contesting the ban. I perfectly knew what I was doing when I hacked my consoles (1 banned, 1 not... yet).

You used unauthorised software, broke the ToS, got service denied, but Nintendo is at fault? Okay. Lemme tell you, if you walk into McDonald's nude, you'll also be denied service, and I doubt the employees will explain why. You know what you did, and if you think it's unwarranted, contest it - they have logs. The reason why Nintendo reserves the right to discontinue service is because they're not able to support a console indefinitely, you *agreed* to their terms, nobody forces you to use Nintendo Network.

 

[Redferne]

You used unauthorised software, broke the ToS, got service denied, but Nintendo is at fault? Okay. Lemme tell you, if you walk into McDonald's nude, you'll also be denied service, and I doubt the employees will explain why. You know what you did, and if you think it's unwarranted, contest it - they have logs. The reason why Nintendo reserves the right to discontinue service is because they're not able to support a console indefinitely, you *agreed* to their terms, nobody forces you to use Nintendo Network.

Can you read?
I never said it was Nintendo fault, on the contrary. I never contested anything, on the contrary. It was just fucking rhetorical.
To follow your reasoning, if you steal something I can put you in jail without proving you actually did it.

 

[Ryccardo]

How does this affect the EULA that you're forced to agree to when first starting up a new system?

On a 3DS, you're not forced to agree to anything (in fact, depending on the country you select, there may not even be an Agree button!)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If I received a message saying you've been ban for using "this software" I would be perfectly fine with it.
But without justification I could argue that I'm wrongfully banned and that it is Nintendo that breaks the EULA.

Truth is, Nintendo Network is not a public service and you may be denied it for any reason, outside of illegal (discriminatory) reasons

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Are you sure? I recall reading somewhere that the Wii had bricking code in one of it's updates specifically targeting users of The Homebrew Channel. It did get some non-homebrew users though...

Never happened; in 3.4 they added wording to the EULA reserving the right to do auto-updates (which never happened) and since [iirc] 3.0 the update screen had a disclaimer about incompatibility with unlicensed software, but it never happened deliberately (I can only think of one way - you're on let's say 3.2, install the latest IOS60 -a stub- and update to 4.1 which uses IOS60, which you can't even accomplish with the official update system anyway!)

The 4.2+ boot2 update bricks were due to shoddy and never used before update functions, not malice

 

[barronwaffles]

Can you read?
I never said it was Nintendo fault, on the contrary. I never contested anything, on the contrary. It was just fucking rhetorical.
To follow your reasoning, if you steal something I can put you in jail without proving you actually did it.

How, exactly, does that follow the same train of logic?

 

[Victhordiz]

You can do whatever you want with your console. But to play online on the nintendo servers you must follow the TOS.

 

[DinohScene]

The console is yours yes.
However, reverse engineering of certain software, circumventing copy protection and hacking copyrighted content (aka enabling piracy) is still forbidden.

Yes you can run a CFW, however, you cannot run pirated games.

Also, as said before, online functionality is a privilege.
You're agreeing to their terms of their online network and they can revoke access whenever they want.
It has nothing to do with the hardware you own.

 

[Redferne]

Truth is, Nintendo Network is not a public service and you may be denied it for any reason, outside of illegal (discriminatory) reasons

And I agree. What I was hypothetically arguing on is how do you know it is "outside of illegal (discriminatory) reasons" if no reasons are given when you're banned?
That's why I said a specific code for "unauthorized software use" would have been nice. That way you know you're banned and for what reason without Nintendo having to justify anything.

 

[PetitMagique]

So how long until we get a emulated Nintendo network where we can play online on 3rd part servers? Is this even possible atm?

 

[EmanueleBGN]

The hardware is your, intellectual property (IP) is Nintendo's.

 

[LH1980]

If you were banned because a pirated game shows on your activity log or if a cheat is detected it would probably be a permanent ban since you violated the TOS for the online service.
If you were banned based on homebrew launcher activity, you may get your ban reversed since that is legal and you have the right to mod.

I think Nintendo didn't ban your NNID like what Sony and MS have done the past because this case was underway. If Lexmark won Nintendo would probably go ahead and continue on and remove eShop access purchased games on your account just like the PSN/Live ban. But since Impression won I guess the worst they can do is restrict online access but still allow users to access their purchased games on eShoop.

 

[Ooka]

This is a great step for showing that modifying consoles is okay. Piracy is what they should be trying to take down, not CFW.

 

[Ryccardo]

And I agree. What I was hypothetically arguing on is how do you know it is "outside of illegal (discriminatory) reasons" if no reasons are given when you're banned?
That's why I said a specific code for "unauthorized software use" would have been nice. That way you know you're banned and for what reason without Nintendo having to justify anything.

That's exactly the proper way to do discrimination in the USA (at least according to movies I watched ) - you didn't fire your subordinate because they're homesexuals, but rather because you simply don't need them anymore, and now you've passed the burden of proof too...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So how long until we get a emulated Nintendo network where we can play online on 3rd part servers? Is this even possible atm?

Possible yes, researched and implemented no

 

[fedehda]

Well, I believe the bans would still hold. If that case's verdict holds up, then technically yes - we are allowed to modify the console, but that doesn't mean Nintendo can't ban us for it. Legal stuff is always wobbly.

Doctor Who, anybody?

 

[V0ltr0n]

Put simply, just because the way you use something becomes legal, does not obligate the company to not hand down consequences if they do not approve of the way the product is used. You cannot force a gaming company to give you access to their servers. Especially when the service in question is free. Also, your warranty will still be rendered invalid. If you think it's wrong of a company to do this, well, you're wrong.

 

[Dimensional]

If you were banned because a pirated game shows on your activity log or if a cheat is detected it would probably be a permanent ban since you violated the TOS for the online service.
If you were banned based on homebrew launcher activity, you may get your ban reversed since that is legal and you have the right to mod.

I think Nintendo didn't ban your NNID like what Sony and MS have done the past because this case was underway. If Lexmark won Nintendo would probably go ahead and continue on and remove eShop access purchased games on your account just like the PSN/Live ban. But since Impression won I guess the worst they can do is restrict online access but still allow users to access their purchased games on eShoop.

Sadly, in the US, laws aren't retroactive. So any bans made before the courts ruled can still be permanent. Can still try to appeal, but still unlikely. Highly unlikely, whether or not this ruling has any effect.