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

[BARNWEY]

*cough* Switch *cough*

By the way, how are people already banned on the Switch? I heard rumors of Switches being banned...

 

[LongDongSilver]

So. Apparently in Nintendo's terms of use (and many other companies) if you buy their product, you don't 100% own it, and these companies can seize their property back at any moment in time, and you basically aren't allowed to do anything you want to it because it's not yours technically. Well not anymore more. A ruling came down, that now makes companies change there terms, and now when you buy a product from them, it is 100% yours, and you can modify (CFW) resale, and do anything you want to it. So the fact that Nintendo banned people for using CFW for minor things like save back ups, and streaming could now force Nintendo to un ban these individuals.

The case is called

Impression Products, Inc v. Lexmark International, Inc

Look it up, good read, may be a fantastic step in the right direction. I'm pumped to read this, because now a lot of these companies will be forced to back off when it comes to user made content.

Thanks for your time.

I dont think this falls in line with the online bans because when you buy your system you're buying the console not the online services and privileges

 

[BARNWEY]

I dont think this falls in line with the online bans because when you buy your system you're buying the console not the online services and privileges

Agreed. Besides, we can always unban ourselves

 

[PrincessLillie]

I dont think this falls in line with the online bans because when you buy your system you're buying the console not the online services and privileges

True, but when you buy a game, you're purchasing access to the game, that game's online services, and other things that you should be allowed to purchase.

By the way, how are people already banned on the Switch? I heard rumors of Switches being banned...

They are? The fuck?

 

[BARNWEY]

True, but when you buy a game, you're purchasing access to the game, that game's online services, and other things that you should be allowed to purchase.

They are? The fuck?

I thought that whole comment you made was because you heard the rumors too... No? Well, apparently people are getting the same error code that 3DS users are getting right now... However, this is a rumor, so I would take it with a grain of salt...

Edit: There isn't any proof yet AFAIK, but if someone was banned, they probably did something they shouldn't've....

 

[duffmmann]

*cough* Switch *cough*

We aren't talking about the Switch, and no one has been banned yet on the Switch. The 3DS doesn't and as of now, will not have a payment-based online model. As such this will not affect anyone banned on the 3DS, and thats just the reality of it, like it or not (I obviously don't like it as someone that is banned on the 3DS, but it is what it is, and I understand it).

 

[Deleted User]

This seems too good to be true.If Nintendo don't care what we do then why did they hire white hats to help patch up exploits? Obviously that hasn't worked very well for Nintendo since we now have full bootrom control over the system so them making a update to block arm9 control is pointless since we can fix it quickly and the 3ds needs arm11 to function properly so they can't do anything to that.They have been desperately trying to block hombrew launcher access so no one can get into the kernel,but that seems to fail aswell.We clearly won over the system.But Nintendo has full control over the servers we play on,which is the problem.

 

[PrincessLillie]

I thought that whole comment you made was because you heard the rumors too... No? Well, apparently people are getting the same error code that 3DS users are getting right now... However, this is a rumor, so I would take it with a grain of salt...

Edit: There isn't any proof yet AFAIK, but if someone was banned, they probably did something they shouldn't've....

I highly doubt that people are being banned ALREADY.

 

[BARNWEY]

I highly doubt that people are being banned ALREADY.

We aren't talking about the Switch, and no one has been banned yet on the Switch. The 3DS doesn't and as of now, will not have a payment-based online model. As such this will not affect anyone banned on the 3DS, and thats just the reality of it, like it or not (I obviously don't like it as someone that is banned on the 3DS, but it is what it is, and I understand it).

Nevermind, @duffmmann says they aren't, and he's pretty trustworthy.... If they were, they probably deserved it XD

 

[duffmmann]

Nevermind, @duffmmann says they aren't, and he's pretty trustworthy....

I think the Switch would have to be hacked first before Nintendo started banning users on the system. Now if when the Switch is inevitably hacked, the payment-based online service is up and running, and Nintendo bans users, perhaps such users could have legal ground to get such bans reversed. But even then I really wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[TiredKorok]

This seems too good to be true.If Nintendo don't care what we do then why did they hire white hats to help patch up exploits? Obviously that hasn't worked very well for Nintendo since we now have full bootrom control over the system so them making a update to block arm9 control is pointless since we can fix it quickly and the 3ds needs arm11 to function properly so they can't do anything to that.They have been desperately trying to block hombrew launcher access so no one can get into the kernel,but that seems to fail aswell.We clearly won over the system.But Nintendo has full control over the servers we play on,which is the problem.

They hired white hats to help with patching exploits for the switch as well, and 4 people have been payed last i checked. So it could be going very well for them and it was a smart move.

 

[Funkymon]

True, but when you buy a game, you're purchasing access to the game, that game's online services, and other things that you should be allowed to purchase.

However, they're not banning the game, they're banning the console.

But either way, these legal threads remain adorable.

 

[Shubshub]

You didn't buy the online service they have every right to ban you from it, You only own the 3DS not the service for online

 

[BARNWEY]

I think the Switch would have to be hacked first before Nintendo started banning users on the system. Now if when the Switch is inevitably hacked, the payment-based online service is up and running, and Nintendo bans users, perhaps such users could have legal ground to get such bans reversed. But even then I really wouldn't hold my breath.

Probably not, it's the same with other online services such as PSN or Xbox Live...

 

[Megaben99]

So. Apparently in Nintendo's terms of use (and many other companies) if you buy their product, you don't 100% own it, and these companies can seize their property back at any moment in time, and you basically aren't allowed to do anything you want to it because it's not yours technically. Well not anymore more. A ruling came down, that now makes companies change there terms, and now when you buy a product from them, it is 100% yours, and you can modify (CFW) resale, and do anything you want to it. So the fact that Nintendo banned people for using CFW for minor things like save back ups, and streaming could now force Nintendo to un ban these individuals.

The case is called

Impression Products, Inc v. Lexmark International, Inc

Look it up, good read, may be a fantastic step in the right direction. I'm pumped to read this, because now a lot of these companies will be forced to back off when it comes to user made content.

Thanks for your time.

I do not believe these cases are the same thing, but an interesting post, and ink cartridge price gouging is a huge consumer problem.

Lexmark claimed those that repackaged and sold their empty ink cartridges were illegal. Nintendo blocked access to portions of their online servers.

Arguing DMCA gives a consumer the right to modify their console makes more sense, but Nintendo didn't disable any critical functions - they can argue that a modified console poses a security risk to their online server.

 

[BARNWEY]

I do not believe these cases are the same thing, but an interesting post, and ink cartridge price gouging is a huge consumer problem.

Lexmark claimed those that repackaged and sold their empty ink cartridges were illegal. Nintendo blocked access to portions of their online servers.

Arguing DMCA gives a consumer the right to modify their console makes more sense, but Nintendo didn't disable any critical functions - they can argue that a modified console poses a security risk to their online server.

Agreed, online play is more like a privilege, not a necessity for the console to function. Besides, we have tutorials on how to unban ourselves for a reason XD

 

[Deleted User]

They hired white hats to help with patching exploits for the switch as well, and 4 people have been payed last i checked. So it could be going very well for them and it was a smart move.

So it seems that they where protecting the switch more than the 3ds from the looks of things.The switch had a web browser found and nothing else that I can recall,by that time they patched everything anyway while the 3ds got opened up even wider than a cave.

 

[CreAtor135]

They can still ban us, probably just not for modding the console itself. They can still ban us if we cheat in their online service because it's being provided to us, rather than us buying it from them and owning it.

 

[Osakasan]

they can argue that a modified console poses a security risk to their online server.

wich is actually true, given that there are apps that can download games directly from their servers.

About this thread, stop dreaming. The machines themselves may not be bannable, but the online service, wich actually has different ToS, is, and it may be actually MORE dangerous since they can just ban our NNIDs, and that's that.

Being out of the frying pan is actually more dangerous.

Also, am i the only one in this fucking forum who entered the homebrew world fully knowing the risks i was taking? Or am i the only one who actually read EULAs? Listen guys, as someone who values the freedom given on PC i'd love to have absolute freedom to tinker with my consoles, but that's just not possible, EULAs exists to give companies the rights over their products they can't get with plain licensing, and given the fact that they can literally anything with us, i'm thankful of being left out of the hook with only an online ban. If my NNID were banned i'd literally lost hundreds of €, and they're in their right of banning it since i went as far as pirating everything i wanted to try.

I've been meaning to say this lately, but stop acting as if you were entitled to do what you want with your consoles. You aren't, you signed multiple EULAs and got through multiple ToS during your first machine setup and online activation.

Mark my words: This may actually be MORE dangerous for us.

 

[Kurt91]

I'm not arguing anything, but just wanting to ask something.

How does this affect the EULA that you're forced to agree to when first starting up a new system? Wouldn't this make those EULAs un-enforceable in any way because we're being denied use of the product that we paid for entirely by refusing to accept it? Or, would they just need to move the EULA to the first time that the eShop is accessed, and leave the main system alone?