Hacking EU Users: Super Ban - GDPR Template

kumikochan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,753
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Tongeren
XP
3,311
Country
Belgium
Can you prove that?Because as far as i know, neither of those reviewers i mentioned are giving Nintendo any money, they aren't part of that dumb affiliate program nor are their reviews sponsored by Nintendo
They are, they also get review copies wich only people in the program do. Look at the program, it does state that when you're a Nintendo partner you can get review copies. There are 2 partnerships, you giving them money from all your videos and they take a smaller cut and you giving them partnership on the Nintendo only videos and they take a larger cut. Those youtubers you mentioned are partnered with Nintendo, they do give them earnings when they upload a Nintendo based video. Only partners get games early to review. They're reviews are sponsored by Nintendo, Projared even said so multiple times when doing a review
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShadowOne333

Ashura66

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
Trophies
0
Age
37
Location
Under my bed
XP
1,683
Country
Portugal
They are, they also get review copies wich only people in the program do. Look at the program, it does state that when you're a Nintendo partner you can get review copies. There are 2 partnerships, you giving them money from all your videos and they take a smaller cut and you giving them partnership on the Nintendo only videos and they take a larger cut. Those youtubers you mentioned are partnered with Nintendo, they do give them earnings when they upload a Nintendo based video. Only partners get games early to review. They're reviews are sponsored by Nintendo, Projared even said so multiple times when doing a review

I will take your word for it. HOWEVER, and i will say again, the fair use law is a very large grey area so TECHNICALLY it's not illegal for Nintendo to take down videos that use their IP. IT's their property after all and it's not like they are the only ones doing it. They do it for petty reasons sure, much like the others who do it(Like the creator of firewatch did to, i think, PewDiePie), but there is no law that specifically and precisely says they can't
 
  • Like
Reactions: kumikochan

ShadowOne333

QVID PRO QVO
Editorial Team
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
12,183
Trophies
2
XP
33,683
Country
Mexico
Can you prove that?Because as far as i know, neither of those reviewers i mentioned are giving Nintendo any money, they aren't part of that dumb affiliate program nor are their reviews sponsored by Nintendo
You gotta be kidding me.
You are telling me that these assholes from NormalBoots don't get sponsored nor paid by Nintendo?
The fuckers receive the games way before launch date to use them as a marketing campaign for the game.

It's obvious they are getting paid, and if not, they are getting free games from their shit.
 

linuxares

The inadequate, autocratic beast!
Global Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
13,299
Trophies
2
XP
18,140
Country
Sweden
lol. What does it say?


A counter argument is only neccessary if have a valid argument, but you don't. Almost everything you say is just wrong. Even the Super Moderator told you that. Maybe you should just shut up?


I never questioned that. If the EULA is invalid, you don't have any right at all to access their service. Why would you think that you magically get this right when you are banned?
Then prove me wrong.
 

Ashura66

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
Trophies
0
Age
37
Location
Under my bed
XP
1,683
Country
Portugal
You gotta be kidding me.
You are telling me that these assholes from NormalBoots don't get sponsored nor paid by Nintendo?
The fuckers receive the games way before launch date to use them as a marketing campaign for the game.

It's obvious they are getting paid, and if not, they are getting free games from their shit.

Getting free games ahead of time is something that most, if not ALL reviewers do, comes with the job description
 

kumikochan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,753
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Tongeren
XP
3,311
Country
Belgium
I will take your word for it. HOWEVER, and i will say again, the fair use law is a very large grey area so TECHNICALLY it's not illegal for Nintendo to take down videos that use their IP. IT's their property after all and it's not like they are the only ones doing it. They do it for petty reasons sure, much like the others who do it(Like the creator of firewatch did to, i think, PewDiePie), but there is no law that specifically and precisely says they can't
I agree that it is their right to take down some videos but to me personally I don't agree with them taking down reviews and parodies and so forth
 

Ashura66

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
Trophies
0
Age
37
Location
Under my bed
XP
1,683
Country
Portugal
I agree that it is their right to take down some videos but to me personally I don't agree with them taking down reviews and parodies and so forth

You aren't the only one, no one agrees with that decision, it's petty, stupid and in the end hurts them more than anyone else since videos using their stuff is free advertising
 
  • Like
Reactions: kumikochan

c80

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
270
Trophies
0
Age
44
XP
194
Country
Germany
Every single argument that you posted is appropriately backed up with legitimate sources.
1)He said you OWN the software but his source was a ruling that said you can sell your license. The ruling had nothing to do with ownership.
2) He said that an EULA is invalid and that that means he has the right to use Nintendos online service. But his source only says that EULAs are invalid.

He could not give one link that proved what he said. This is why normal persons cannot take him serious
 

linuxares

The inadequate, autocratic beast!
Global Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
13,299
Trophies
2
XP
18,140
Country
Sweden
1)He said you OWN the software but his source was a ruling that said you can sell your license. The ruling had nothing to do with ownership.
2) He said that an EULA is invalid and that that means he has the right to use Nintendos online service. But his source only says that EULAs are invalid.

He could not give one link that proved what he said. This is why normal persons cannot take him serious
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...nnot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games - oh look, another one!

"Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy - tangible or intangible - and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy."

AKA. I bought it, it's mine!
 
Last edited by linuxares,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,840
Country
Poland
One things for sure with this thread, digital goods. Have the laws kept up with time? What actually are YOUR rights? Since 2 parties say different things, rulings has been done before, ToS not valid in some countries, EULAs are just paper information without legal ramifications and people are generally not nice in here. Since when asked, they can't show prove to stand their ground either about digital goods, some think they know more than others without providing information and therefore their argument is worth as much as sour milk. No one wants to it and it gives of a bad smell.

As some say, the company have all the rights, and no obligations. So if a ToS claim that they have the right to go home, once you own the game for 5 years and recover it. That wouldn't hold in a court. This is why a consumer must stand his right, expecially when physical media isn't in the picture. I've taken the liberty to seek further about how the real world, with real lawyers can hopefully check up or at least see if they're interested in getting a court ruling about digital goods. It's a fact that physical media is dying, so we must have clean rights and not just obligations as customers.

This isn't about getting the consoles unbanned for me, it's about what will happen later, since there is nothing right now what say Nintendo won't ban your eshop account.
Alright, you want information? Let's provide information. Nintendo is entitled, via GDPR legislation, to collect your personally identifying data without consent. Why? Because it is required to fulfil their contractual agreement to you, as outlined in the Terms of Service, the license and/or other forms you've consented to and digitally signed when turning the console on and setting up your account.

Unless a data subject has provided informed consent to data processing for one or more purposes, personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis to do so. They include (...)To comply with a data controller's legal obligations. (...) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject.
You're also free to withdraw from the data processing... unless the data processing is required for running the service, in which case you're the dummy for signing up for a service that requires data you're not willing to provide:
A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service. (Article 7(4))
Finally, Right of Access does not mean that you get to access your games again - it only guarantees that you get to see collected personally identifying information and how it is processed. Your games are not personally identifying, they're products you bought.
The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives citizens the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed.
Just to be unambiguous here, they also provide a definition of personally identifiable data.
According to the European Commission, "personal data is any information relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information, or a computer's IP address."
I'm sure they'll let you recover all of that if you choose to access it, but it doesn't help your case. It's a waste of public resources and the DPO's time, but you're entitled to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
 

kumikochan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,753
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Tongeren
XP
3,311
Country
Belgium
No one questioned that you may sell your license.


Yes, you bought the license and the license is yours.


You claimed that you OWN THE SOFTWARE, but you never proved that
It also claims in the court ruling that you may make a copy of the game you bought and sell the copy as long as you delete the original so in that way it is more then just a license you own.

Since the copyright holder cannot object to the resale of a copy of a computer program for which that rightholder's distribution right is exhausted under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, it must be concluded that a second acquirer of that copy and any subsequent acquirer are ‘lawful acquirers' of it within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24.
Consequently, in the event of a resale of the copy of the computer program by the first acquirer, the new acquirer will be able, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, to download onto his computer the copy sold to him by the first acquirer. Such a download must be regarded as a reproduction of a computer program that is necessary to enable the new acquirer to use the program in accordance with its intended purpose.
 
Last edited by kumikochan,

linuxares

The inadequate, autocratic beast!
Global Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
13,299
Trophies
2
XP
18,140
Country
Sweden
Hmm... when I think about it. A normal transaction, you make a legal agreement (buying goods) with a store example Mediamarkt. When I bought said product me and the store made a mutial agreement. The box claim accessibility etc. I therefore actually never done an agreement with any companys product of yet. Also I can't read the EULA before booting for example the Switch up. If I don't agree with it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subtle Demise

c80

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
270
Trophies
0
Age
44
XP
194
Country
Germany
It also claims in the court ruling that you may make a copy of the game you bought and sell the copy as long as you delete the original so in that way it is more then just a license you own
The right to sell is nothing you OWN

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

Click link, read it. Thank you.
the whole page you linked does not contain the word OWN
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccprodigy

kumikochan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,753
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Tongeren
XP
3,311
Country
Belgium
The right to sell is nothing you OWN

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


the whole page you linked does not contain the word OWN
Then why can you make a copy of the game itself and sell that copy ? According to court ruling you can perfectly fine do that. Selling a copy is selling a copy and not selling a license
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,825
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,840
Country
Poland
It also claims in the court ruling that you may make a copy of the game you bought and sell the copy as long as you delete the original so in that way it is more then just a license you own.

Since the copyright holder cannot object to the resale of a copy of a computer program for which that rightholder's distribution right is exhausted under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, it must be concluded that a second acquirer of that copy and any subsequent acquirer are ‘lawful acquirers' of it within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24.
Consequently, in the event of a resale of the copy of the computer program by the first acquirer, the new acquirer will be able, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24, to download onto his computer the copy sold to him by the first acquirer. Such a download must be regarded as a reproduction of a computer program that is necessary to enable the new acquirer to use the program in accordance with its intended purpose.
It says that because you're entitled to one copy of the software. The license, the court or anybody on the planet isn't particularly bothered with how you store it as long as you only run one concurrently. I support the digital right to backup copies and replacement media, so I'm perfectly happy with this decision - it's a good statutory right, and statutory rights are not affected by service/license agreements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quantumcat and c80

kumikochan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
3,753
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Tongeren
XP
3,311
Country
Belgium
It says that because you're entitled to one copy of the software. The license, the court or anybody on the planet isn't particularly bothered with how you store it as long as you only run one concurrently, I support the digital right to backup copies and replacement media, so I"m perfectly happy with this decision - it's a good statutory rights, and statutory rights are not affected by service/license agreements.
Hm yeah could be
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    S @ salazarcosplay: hello everyone