Hacking 3DS Bricking Rumor

[Rydian]

Sorry didn't notice that ! Thank you!

However is there any particolar precaution to be taken while using a DSTWO wuth active WiFi connection ? (For example disactivate the sendig of informations or automatic download in the spotpass menu ?)

The safest option is to just stop going online at all, but if you must go online turn all streetpass, spotpass, and download stuff off, and only turn the Wifi switch on once you have the DSTwo running.

 

[Ace Overclocked]

Wow, i never imagined this thread would still be alive.

 

[Luigi2012SM64DS]

Sorry didn't notice that ! Thank you!

However is there any particolar precaution to be taken while using a DSTWO wuth active WiFi connection ? (For example disactivate the sendig of informations or automatic download in the spotpass menu ?)

Meh. I use it all the time nothing happens. People like you guys worry too much.

 

[girugamarc]

I personally believe this rumor is false, for the following reasons.

1. Laws in the US/UK don't allow changes without consent.
   If you are found to be using a flash cart or third-party accessory, Nintendo has the right to stop you from using their online services, because that is a service. However they do not have the right to change the device without your permission, as it is a good. The law recognizes the clear difference between goods and services, and this is partially why Nintendo needs your confirmation before running any updates (either individually manually, or allowing it with the automatic update option).

Just for argument's purpose, can I get a source on this law?

 

[Foxi4]

Just for argument's purpose, can I get a source on this law?

It's a general rule that works almost globally - you are only bound to follow the terms of a contract that were part of it during the moment of signing, any subsequent changes to the contract require the consent of all participating parties.

Once a contract has been signed, then it typically cannot be changed unless all parties to the contract agree to the modifications.
~http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/Contract-Modification.html

 

[girugamarc]

It's a general rule that works almost globally - you are only bound to follow the terms of a contract that were part of it during the moment of signing, any subsequent changes to the contract require the consent of all participating parties.

"The contract may have said that the credit card issuer could change the interest rate at its discretion. By signing the initial contract, you've already given the credit card issuer the right to make future changes"

"We can update your 3DS at our discretion, by signing the initial contract, you've already given us the right to make future changes"

I'm pretty sure we agreed to that somewhere when we turned our 3DS on

 

[Foxi4]

I'm pretty sure we agreed to that somewhere when we turned our 3DS on

Agreed to what, bricking?

As it was said countless times before, Terms of Use refer to services, not physical devices. Nintendo cannot (and will not) brick systems simply because it's illegal for them to do so. They may at worst deny you access to Nintendo Network.

 

[girugamarc]

Agreed to what, bricking?

As it was said countless times before, Terms of Use refer to services, not physical devices. Nintendo cannot (and will not) brick systems simply because it's illegal for them to do so. They may at worst deny you access to Nintendo Network.

I'm not talking about bricking. I'm only talking about this

Laws in the US/UK don't allow changes without consent.

It's misleading. Then I'd like to know in what law is it specified that Nintendo is not allowed to brick your console. I, too, believe they aren't allowed to do so. But I am simply going off of common sense and I'd like to see it stated on some official document the fact they are not allowed to render a console inoperable if it is being used in violation of the EULA

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not talking about bricking. I'm only talking about this

Laws in the US/UK don't allow changes without consent.

Because they don't. They don't allow changes to contracts without written consent.

If you've consented to changing of any fees whatsoever then the contract hasn't been changed in any way - the fees have and you have previously consented to any and all changes of fees. The actual contact proper remains the same.

It would be entirely different if one of the parties would like to add something new to the contract, something that was not agreed upon initially, in which case the contract has to be signed again.

 

[girugamarc]

Because they don't. They don't allow changes to contracts without written consent.

If you've consented to changing of any fees whatsoever then the contract hasn't been changed in any way - the fees have and you have previously consented to any and all changes of fees. The actual contact proper remains the same.

It would be entirely different if one of the parties would like to add something new to the contract, something that was not agreed upon initially, in which case the contract has to be signed again.

What about this bit in an update from more than 2 years ago

IMPORTANT: After the Nintendo 3DS system is updated, any existing or future unauthorized technical modification of the hardware or software of your Nintendo 3DS system, or the use of an unauthorized device in connection with your system, may render the system permanently unplayable. Content deriving from the unauthorized modification of the hardware or software of your Nintendo 3DS system may be removed.

 

[Foxi4]

What about this bit in an update from more than 2 years ago

Take note of the wording. "(...) any existing or future unauthorized technical modification (...) or the use of an unauthorized device (...) may render the system permanently unplayable" - who are the Agents in this sentence? I know it's semantics, but it matters.

The Agents of the sentence are "unauthorized technical modifications" and "the use of an unauthorized device" and it's the Agents that may render the system inoperable.

This is Nintendo's way of saying that "if you jam a soggy piece of toast into your system, your system may stop working because it wasn't designed to work with soggy toasts".

If you modify your system and a future update changes some of the inner workings, this modification is not accounted for by the update and as such it may render the system inoperable with the modification at fault (See: Certain Wii updates which bricked modified systems not because they were designed to brick them but because the modifications protected some IOS'es from being overwritten, resulting in an incomplete update and subsequently a brick).

Nintendo is not the Agent of that sentence - they are not reserving the right to brick your system, they're saying that updating a modified system may result in a brick because the update was not designed to work on modified systems.

 

[girugamarc]

Take note of the wording. "(...) any existing or future unauthorized technical modification (...) or the use of an unauthorized device (...) may render the system permanently unplayable" - who are the Agents in this sentence? I know it's semantics, but it matters.

The Agents of the sentence are "unauthorized technical modifications" and "the use of an unauthorized device" and it's the Agents that may render the system unoperable.

This is Nintendo's way of saying that "if you jam a soggy piece of toast into your system, your system may stop working because it wasn't designed to work with soggy toasts".

If you modify your system and a future update changes some of the inner workings, this modification is not accounted for by the update and as such it may render the system unoperable with the modification at fault.

Nintendo is not the Agent of that sentence - they are not reserving the right to brick your system, they're saying that updating a modified system may result in a brick because the update was not designed to work on modified systems.

I was aware of that. Of course Nintendo would never come out and say "we'll brick your console if you do this" and would rather leave it up to careful wordplay as to not offend too many users.

What if Nintendo intentionally bricks the consoles detected to use unauthorized devices but then blames it on the update? It could be a legitimate update that adds features for normal users but kills the 3DS of those doing things they "aren't allowed" to do.

Even by some miracle someone discovers that Nintendo deliberately bricked your 3DS, it wouldn't matter because at the end of everything, you consented to it.

 

[Foxi4]

I was aware of that. Of course Nintendo would never come out and say "we'll brick your console if you do this" and would rather leave it up to careful wordplay as to not offend too many users.

What if Nintendo intentionally bricks the consoles detected to use unauthorized devices but then blames it on the update?

Even by some miracle someone discovers that Nintendo deliberately bricked your 3DS, it wouldn't matter because at the end of everything you consented to it.

This has all been discussed previously in the thread.

No, you haven't at any point consented to damaging your goods for not following Terms of Use which refer to services.

The goods you buy in a store are yours and yours only, you own them and you can do whatever you want with them within the limits of law. Don't mistake partaking in a service (Nintendo Network, eShop, a warranty program etc.) and ownership which are two very different things.

Breaking the Terms of Use/Service can result in voiding your warranty or getting banned from Online functionality as these are services and they are based upon their Terms of Use/Service which you have to follow in order to participate in them, but it cannot result in any form of damage to your private property which is protected by law.

As far as detectability is concerned, a simple trial and error demonstration would be enough to prove that Nintendo is at fault and you would be able to receive hefty compensation. Not only that, Nintendo would also be in violation of the law in many-a-countries and would likely drown in a lawsuit Tsunami.

EDIT: Just to add further clarification, the moment your currency is being exchanged for a system (or any kind of goods, actually) in a store, the ownership rights are legally transferred to you. From that point onwards, you legally own the system even before it's out of the box and you are protected by the law until you choose to sell the system and transfer the ownership rights to someone else.

Any intentional damage done to the system by any third party is a violation of the law, regardless of what the Terms of Use or Terms of Service state as using goods you own is simply your right. Long story short, rendering a system inoperable is simply against the law.

Using a more abstract example will probably clarify the issue further in terms of the wording.

If I were a bicycle salesman and I added a clause stating that "the use of unauthorized accessories may cause the bicycle to malfunction and lead to injury" to all my store receipts and then hired a thug to smack people in the knee to make them fall off their bicycles if they do use accessories bought from other stores, I would clearly be in violation of the law.

An "unauthorized" bicycle bell was not the cause of anyone's injuries - the injuries were quite obviously caused by the thug batting people in their knees. My clause does not protect me in any way because it's not the "unauthorized accessories" that were the cause of injuries, it was me and my thug.

 

[Rydian]

To add an example to the above, when Sony removed OtherOS from the PS3, people who bought it were granted partial refunds in the UK (since it no longer did everything that was advertised).
http://www.ps3news.com/PlayStation-3/european-law-grants-partial-refund-due-to-ps3-otheros-removal/
Though the refunds are the responsibility of the shop that sold it, and not Sony, and Sony refused to reimburse shops that were required to give the partial refunds.

Also unfortunately the US has no automatic protections like this, so people who want to take issue with it in the US have to put in a suit, which is likely going to cost way more than the PS3 itself, so...