Flashkarts and Updates

[Kalisiin]

Uses for Flashcarts that are legal...or ought to be legal

1. Homebrew applications/games

2. Backing up of games previously bought

3. Getting games for older systems to play on the DS...if you had once bought the original item.

4. "Try it before you buy it" downloading of games.


Here's my issue, really:
If you are using your card, not to pirate...but only for purposes that are legal (or ought to be legal, since they hurt no-one) then you should be free to do so...and be left alone. Nintendo should not have the right to block your usage of a flashcart, assuming you are a pirate, just because you use one. There ARE legitimate uses for a flashcart that are not pirating.

I also do not believe that any company should have the right, without fully disclosing what it will do...to remotely update any device on an aftermarket basis. They could choose to, say, not allow you in the DSiWare Shop unless you agree to the update, fine, but then you get to make an informed choice.

My argument is that a consumer/end user...has or should have the right, to make an informed choice.

Here I will list some other practices which are fairly common...which DO deprive Nintendo of sales...and also involve others making money off Nintendo's licensed stuff...and about which Nintendo utters not so much as a squeak.

1. E-Bay

When I purchase a used game off EBay, from another person...instead of buying the game new....I am usually doing so because
A- the game is cheaper that way
or
B - the game I want is no longer on store shelves, as it is not a new release.

But this is not always the case.

Example - I could buy a used DS Lite on EBay. Nintendo makes nothing. OR...I could go to Gamestop, and buy a new DSLite, and Nintendo makes money on that.

Yet, you do not hear Nintendo screaming about EBay cutting into their precious profits, do you?


2. Gamestop

When I go to Gamestop, I can buy used cartridges. Sometimes, the same game is available, in the same shop...in both Used and New condition. I can choose to buy New, and nintendo makes money. Or, I can choose to save money and buy the cheaper Used cart. In which case, Nintendo makes nothing...and what's more...Gamestop DOES make money, because they bought that cart for ten bucks in trade...and are selling it to me for twenty bucks.

HOW IS THAT NOT "PIRACY??" Yet, You don't hear Nintendo make a single squeak about this fairly common practice, by which Gamestop makes money selling a product that is licensed/copyrighted by Nintendo...and Nintendo gets nothing from it.

How is it that downloading ROM's for free is "piracy" but what Gamestop does there is perfedctly fine...and NOT "piracy?" Seems to me that what Gamestop does is even worse! Becauise they even MAKE MONEY while Nintendo makes nothing.



I go to eBay fairly regularly and buy games USED, from other people.

One, because it's cheaper.
Two, because most of the titles I want are no longer on store shelves, as they are not "new releases."

When I buy games on eBay, Nintendo makes no money off it.

Yet, you don't hear Nintendo screaming about eBay, do you?

Sometimes, I buy used games at GameStop. Even some fairly new release games.
I have even had a choice, before, between a new cart...and a used cart, of the same game, in the same GameStop...and bought the Used one because it was cheaper.

When I buy the used one, Nintendo makes zilch off me.

Yet, Gamestop makes money off me, because they paid someone ten bucks in trade on that used game...and sell it to me for twenty.

And you don't hear Nintendo screaming about Gamestop, do you?

Now, why do you suppose that is?

Again...how is it that download ROMs for free, for your own personal use is "piracy" and what Gamestop does there is "capitalism?" Seems to me Gamestop hurts Nintendo more, because Gamestop is MAKING MONEY...by selling a product licensed and copyrighted by Nintendo...for more than they paid for it. THEY ARE ACTUALLY MAKING A PROFIT OFF THIS!!

Yet, Nintendo makes not a squeak about what Gamestop does...and they scream bloody murder about so-called "pirates" when they are individuals who merely download a game for free, for themselves, and make no money at all off it. They just save the money they might have paid either Nintendo...or Gamestop.

You see, when it's a BIG CORPORATION that is doing what basically amounts to "piracy" Nintendo says not a word. Only when it is powerless individual people does Nintendo scream bloody murder.

Now, who wants to argue my points?

 

[iPikachu]

doesn't gamestop buy the games from ninty then sell it to customers? then ninty earns money or am i wrong? they just want money amrite

 

[Cermage]

when you see the game on shelves at a place like gamestop, nintendo have already made the money from those copies. gamestop orders the games from nintendo. if its a big title like pokemon, they'll order large amounts because they'll know it'll sell. if a game flops, it will/wont sell, chains will have lost money and in turn wont order as much. this determines if the publisher makes money or not.

Buying used from chains like gamestop has always been under fire, just not as much these days. at least its more under control than downloading as it is limited to physical copies. that and i know EB games don't re-shelf games that have been bought and re-sold more than 3 times, though i'm not sure if thats a policy over all the stores. its something that the few that i visit do.

 

[Domination]

I think some points of yours are reasonable.

But, backing up of games is not legal everywhere. And what gamestop doing is not really illegal, lots of stores all around the world do that, absolutely not piracy. And when you buy the game, it is yours, you sell it to someone else, its theirs, Nintendo has no right in any law to stop the two parties from buying and selling.

 

[Kalisiin]

I think some points of yours are reasonable.

But, backing up of games is not legal everywhere. And what gamestop doing is not really illegal, lots of stores all around the world do that, absolutely not piracy. And when you buy the game, it is yours, you sell it to someone else, its theirs, Nintendo has no right in any law to stop the two parties from buying and selling.

Thanks. I'm glad I was able to present a reasonable argument.

Anyway, backing up games is NOT legal. Oughta be, but it isn't.

and, no, what Gamestop is doing is not illegal...but I'm using it as a comparison...
How is it that, if I download a game for free, for my own use only...that is "piracy" yet, if Gamestop buys a copy of Mario Kart from me for ten bucks...and then sells it to you for twenty...why is THAT okay?

In the first scenario...I made no money off Nintendo's copyrighted, licensed product...but I saved 50 bucks over buying it new, or maybe 20 bucks to Gamestop over buying it used. And that is "piracy." Unless of course, I already own the game, and am just saving a backup copy...which I don't consider to be piracy, because I already bought said game. that is backing up my investment.

In the second scenario...Gamestop bought a product from me, which is copyrighted and licensed by Nintendo...for ten bucks....and then turned around and sold it to you for twenty...meaing Nintendo made nothing off that, but Gamestop just made ten bucks off that. How is it that what Gamestop is doing is NOT "piracy" when they actually make money off it?

And how is it that Nintendo doesn't scream about THAT...yet they scream about downloaders?
THAT is what I'm saying.

Again...look at it this way...five scenarios...
#1 Purchase new
#2 Purchase Used off EBay
#3 Purchase used at Gamestop
#4 Download for free - do not own cart
#5 Download for free - already own physical cart


Scenario 1.
Legal. Nintendo profits. I get game, they get money...everyone's happy.

Scenario 2.
Legal. Nintendo does not profit. This is a transaction between two people. Nintendo does not complain - even though they make no money...as opposed to the buyer in this scenario having to resort to Scenario number 1. So, in this case, you could argue Nintendo loses, because they do not make 50 bucks off the buyer. Yet, not a squeak from Nintendo.

Scenario 3. Legal. Nintendo does not profit. Gamestop DOES profit. Off a product licensed and copyright by Nintendo. This is not "piracy," even though a party other than the copyright holder/licenser IS MAKING A PROFIT. Nintendo makes not a squeak.

Scenario 4. Illegal. Ought to be illegal. Piracy. Bad. Nintendo rightly screams bloody murder.

Scenario 5. Illegal. Ought to be legal. No one is hurt by this. No one has made a profit off this. Yet, Nintendo screams bloody murder about this, and ASSUMES you are a pirate, when, in fact, you aren't, because you also DID at one time purchase the actual cart.

My argument is...why is Scenario 5 illegal, and why does Nintendo scream bloody murder about Scenario 5....and yet, not a squeak about Scenarios 2 and 3...and why are 2 and 3 legal...but 5 is not?
Why is Scenario 5 "piracy" and #3 is not?

Understand my point now?

 

[Kalisiin]

doesn't gamestop buy the games from ninty then sell it to customers? then ninty earns money or am i wrong? they just want money amrite

Yes. But they also buy from customers...who maybe are trading in games on different games. they may give YOU ten bucks store credit for your used Mario Kart...and then sell it to me, used, for twenty bucks.

Ninty makes NO money on that deal...but Gamestop just did. And they did so on a product licensed and copyrighted by Ninty.
Yet, what some of us do, downloading for free...for our own use...is called "piracy" yet Gamestop ACTUALLY MAKING MONEY off re-selling used games...is NOT considered piracy. THAT was my point.

not that I'm defending piracy. I'm not.

What I AM saying though, is...why does Ninty scream about the one...but doesn't utter a squeak about the other?

Why is one OK...and the other not OK?

Just posing that as a hypothetical question.

 

[Kalisiin]

Buying used from chains like gamestop has always been under fire, just not as much these days. at least its more under control than downloading as it is limited to physical copies.

OK, valid point.
BUT...

If I download for free, as a backup, something I already bought...and do so just for my own use...that is still considered "piracy." even though I am not selling it to anyone, I'm not making any money off it...and I in fact already bought the physical cart.

If Gamestop sells the physical cart for more than they paid for it...THEY ARE MAKING A PROFIT. And that isn't considered piracy. Again, why?

Just sayin' ya know?

What I don't understand is...why doesn't Nintendo just do something like i-tunes and have done with it? Why not put all the titles in the DSiWare Shop? Why torture us by adding only a title or two a week...and even then, usually crappy titles?

People are gonna download. Why not give them a chance to do so, legally...and turn a buck doing it...instead of fighting a never-ending battle?

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think most of us who download WOULD, if given a choice...pay and download legally...rather than download for free illegally. I know that I would.

 

[Domination]

What gamespot does may sound unreasonable, but it is alright by law.

In my opinion. None of the parties care if it could be law, they only care if it is already law. They can profit in some way or another, they wouldn't care. And its the same as 'rights', when you buy it from them, its no longer for them to decide.

And they don't care if people backup, because the ratio of people who pirate to those who backup has a big difference. Why would they risk just for few who backup? And a digital copy would actually be like a real product. They would assume you are actually getting another copy, so you should pay once more. The only right term for so called "backup" according to some people is doing it yourself, not downloading.

Coporates just do things by the book. They couldn't care less. Blame the human upbringing.

 

[Kalisiin]

What gamespot does may sound unreasonable, but it is alright by law.

In my opinion. None of the parties care if it could be law, they only care if it is already law. They can profit in some way or another, they wouldn't care. And its the same as 'rights', when you buy it from them, its no longer for them to decide.

And they don't care if people backup, because the ratio of people who pirate to those who backup has a big difference. Why would they risk just for few who backup? And a digital copy would actually be like a real product. They would assume you are actually getting another copy, so you should pay once more. The only right term for so called "backup" according to some people is doing it yourself, not downloading.

Coporates just do things by the book. They couldn't care less. Blame the human upbringing.

I've conceded that point. But again, I'm just saying...WHY is that okay? WHY is that legal? WHY does Ninty say nothing about that...and yet scream about Scenario #5...and say nothing about Scenario #3?

What I am TRYING to illustrate here is the empowerment of the corporations over the individual.
The point I am TRYING to make here...is that when a corporation does it, it's okay...but they want to criminalize an individual who does it.

I am just a champion for individual rights over the rights of corporations, that's all. I believe that individual rights are being trampled while corporations get everything their way.

 

[syko5150]

Well as far as Ebay goes people sell the games but Nintendo had already made money off that copy of the game since someone had to have bought it at one point(unless they're stolen) but as far as Game Stop goes what they do with games is their choice.If i want to take a game to game stop and sell it for buttons and string that's my choice and since game stop bought the game they have the right to sell it if they choose for whatever price it doesn't effect Nintendo or other companies since at one point that same copy was bought for original price.Most games are bought when they first come out and that's when companies make most of their money but a lot of times people want to play games that they don't even sell anymore or are extremely hard to find and that's where companies like game stop come in sure Nintendo might not like the fact but Game Stop has every right to do it.As far as pirating games goes if i buy 1 copy of a game and dump it on the internet for millions of people to download that costs Nintendo and other gaming companies millions of dollars so that's why they complain so much about pirating games.

It's Illegal to sell copies of their licensed products same goes for music and movies.People can buy Games,Movies and Music for cheap prices and resell them if they choose but if they make illegal copies of those products and sell those copies that's when it becomes illegal.

 

[tnaught10]

I think some points of yours are reasonable.

But, backing up of games is not legal everywhere. And what gamestop doing is not really illegal, lots of stores all around the world do that, absolutely not piracy. And when you buy the game, it is yours, you sell it to someone else, its theirs, Nintendo has no right in any law to stop the two parties from buying and selling.

Thanks. I'm glad I was able to present a reasonable argument.

Anyway, backing up games is NOT legal. Oughta be, but it isn't.

and, no, what Gamestop is doing is not illegal...but I'm using it as a comparison...
How is it that, if I download a game for free, for my own use only...that is "piracy" yet, if Gamestop buys a copy of Mario Kart from me for ten bucks...and then sells it to you for twenty...why is THAT okay?

You obviously don't understand the consumer market. Okay, first of all if you download a ROM of a game in which you do not own, that is considered Piracy. But if you own an actual copy of it, it isn't necessarily piracy.

Your argument about Gamestop doesn't make sense on any level. Gamestop is a corporation. They purchase games from nintendo at a certain price then RESELL them for a little bit of a mark up price so that they can too make a profit.

With your issue on used games: Gamestop will buy your game for $10 and then sell it for $20 strictly because they know you'll take the ten. Nintendo has no issue with that nor can they if they wanted to. You could easily sell your game on ebay or something for more than $10 and maybe $20, but your probably to lazy and since Gamestop is right down the street you'll just sell it to them. They RESELL items, items which they purchased meaning they have the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you purchase it from them, you now have CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you sell it back to Gamestop, guess who has the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product, GAMESTOP. Nintendo has no control over what gamestop does with games once Nintendo has shipped games out to resellers such as Gamestop.

 

[benjaminlibl]

Here's my issue, really:
If you are using your card, not to pirate...but only for purposes that are legal (or ought to be legal, since they hurt no-one) then you should be free to do so...and be left alone. Nintendo should not have the right to block your usage of a flashcart, assuming you are a pirate, just because you use one. There ARE legitimate uses for a flashcart that are not pirating.
This is a good point, but impractical. This allows them no control whatsoever, since both parties are left alone. Your statement could be argued the other way.

"Just because it isn't used for pirating, doesn't mean it won't be."

In which case, Nintendo makes nothing...and what's more...Gamestop DOES make money, because they bought that cart for ten bucks in trade...and are selling it to me for twenty bucks.No. They've already made what they should have from the person who originally bought it. That's not "nothing."
QUOTE(Kalisiin @ Sep 12 2009, 04:10 PM)

HOW IS THAT NOT "PIRACY??"

It's not piracy, because piracy is obtaining a copy of the game without paying for it. In this case, the original buyer has already paid for it. Nintendo already made what they would have made.

I think I understand Kalisiin's reasoning now. Nintendo makes nothing of the second sale. Since pirates have to first obtain the game to dump it, after which people download for free, they also make nothing. So buying a game at Gamestop is the same as pirating.

However these are two different things. In the first case, the person who purchased the product a second time isn't doing anything illegal. He's simply buying a used, PHYSICAL copy of the game. That's vastly different from downloading a rom online.

I think Nintendo's trying to kill off flashcarts altogether. After all, backing up a game wouldn't mean anything if you can't play it.

 

[Jakob95]

Wtf. Everything you said is wrong. Buying a game used is not piracy... Its not piracy because the original person that bought the game he bought it from Nintendo then he sold it to someone else but he never made a copy of it.

 

[Kalisiin]

With your issue on used games: Gamestop will buy your game for $10 and then sell it for $20 strictly because they know you'll take the ten. Nintendo has no issue with that nor can they if they wanted to. You could easily sell your game on ebay or something for more than $10 and maybe $20, but your probably to lazy and since Gamestop is right down the street you'll just sell it to them. They RESELL items, items which they purchased meaning they have the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you purchase it from them, you now have CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you sell it back to Gamestop, guess who has the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product, GAMESTOP. Nintendo has no control over what gamestop does with games once Nintendo has shipped games out to resellers such as Gamestop.

Aha!!
"Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...(rubbing hands with delight...)

I was hoping you'd fall right into the trap I set for you, and you did so...admirably.

When Gamestop purchases that used game, your argument is that they have CONSUMER RIGHTS. and that Nintendo has no control over what Gamestop does with those games. AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

But then, WHY...do I not have CONSUMER RIGHTS over my DSi, when I buy it? Why can Nintendo exercise control over what I do with that product, once I have bought it?

Do you see?

You see how corporations give themselves and each other...more rights than they accord to individuals?

NOW, you understand the core of my argument.

Thanks for stepping into my trap.

P.S. My argument is that Nintendo should be going after the manufacturers and sellers of flashcarts, if they have a problem with those devices. They should not be going after individual users of said devices. and they should not be assuming that all users of flashcarts are pirates, just because some are.

Nintendo is doing what they are doing because it's EASY....because individuals are basically powerless, whereas corporations aren't. Also, because most individuals do not have the time, the money, the resources, or the legal expertise to fight back.

Individuals rarely read, and certainly usually do not fully understand those EULA's that are written in legalese. when I updated my DSi, I accepted the EULA, because it would not allow me to proceed otherwise. It did not give me a choice. at least, not an INFORMED CHOICE.

I do not recall signing any EULA when I originally bought the device. I never gave them the right to alter the functioning of my device. And if I knew, in advance, EVERYTHING that the said update would do...I would not have approved it.

My argument is that I, nor anyone, can be held to the terms of a EULA...when said EULA did not fully disclose all information...and, in fact, did their level best to hide certain information. It's called deceptive practices.

My point is they should have no legal ability to enforce that EULA...since the agreement to that EULA was obtained by deceptive means.

How many of you guys out there would have accepted the update...if you knew, in advance, that it would disable your flashcarts?

They went out of their way to hide that fact, to obfuscate and inveigle you into accepting it.
(And there is a reason I am using tricky words like "obfuscate" and "inveigle" in this argument...see if you can figure it out, I have certainly given enough hints.)

 

[syko5150]

With your issue on used games: Gamestop will buy your game for $10 and then sell it for $20 strictly because they know you'll take the ten. Nintendo has no issue with that nor can they if they wanted to. You could easily sell your game on ebay or something for more than $10 and maybe $20, but your probably to lazy and since Gamestop is right down the street you'll just sell it to them. They RESELL items, items which they purchased meaning they have the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you purchase it from them, you now have CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you sell it back to Gamestop, guess who has the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product, GAMESTOP. Nintendo has no control over what gamestop does with games once Nintendo has shipped games out to resellers such as Gamestop.

Aha!!
"Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...(rubbing hands with delight...)

I was hoping you'd fall right into the trap I set for you, and you did so...admirably.

When Gamestop purchases that used game, your argument is that they have CONSUMER RIGHTS. and that Nintendo has no control over what Gamestop does with those games. AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

But then, WHY...do I not have CONSUMER RIGHTS over my DSi, when I buy it? Why can Nintendo exercise control over what I do with that product, once I have bought it?

Do you see?

You see how corporations give themselves and each other...more rights than they accord to individuals?

NOW, you understand the core of my argument.

Thanks for stepping into my trap.

its because 99% of the time people who buy flash carts aren't using them for just homebrew purposes sure people may want to create their own homebrew games or play other peoples but those people will most likely still download roms and put them on their flash cart and so nintendo creates a block for it sure it ruins it for homebrew lovers but nintendo has a right to do what they want with their systems and going online with the dsi is a privilege not a right if you want to use the DSi store and download other things then you have to go by their TERMS OF SERVICE and using flash cartridges isnt allowed by them.

 

[Kalisiin]

With your issue on used games: Gamestop will buy your game for $10 and then sell it for $20 strictly because they know you'll take the ten. Nintendo has no issue with that nor can they if they wanted to. You could easily sell your game on ebay or something for more than $10 and maybe $20, but your probably to lazy and since Gamestop is right down the street you'll just sell it to them. They RESELL items, items which they purchased meaning they have the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you purchase it from them, you now have CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product. And when you sell it back to Gamestop, guess who has the CONSUMER RIGHTS to the said product, GAMESTOP. Nintendo has no control over what gamestop does with games once Nintendo has shipped games out to resellers such as Gamestop.

Aha!!
"Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...(rubbing hands with delight...)

I was hoping you'd fall right into the trap I set for you, and you did so...admirably.

When Gamestop purchases that used game, your argument is that they have CONSUMER RIGHTS. and that Nintendo has no control over what Gamestop does with those games. AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

But then, WHY...do I not have CONSUMER RIGHTS over my DSi, when I buy it? Why can Nintendo exercise control over what I do with that product, once I have bought it?

Do you see?

You see how corporations give themselves and each other...more rights than they accord to individuals?

NOW, you understand the core of my argument.

Thanks for stepping into my trap.

its because 99% of the time people who buy flash carts aren't using them for just homebrew purposes sure people may want to create their own homebrew games or play other peoples but those people will most likely still download roms and put them on their flash cart and so nintendo creates a block for it sure it ruins it for homebrew lovers but nintendo has a right to do what they want with their systems and going online with the dsi is a privilege not a right if you want to use the DSi store and download other things then you have to go by their TERMS OF SERVICE and using flash cartridges isnt allowed by them.

But again, my argument is...fine...re-program the units you have not yet already sold to someone, Nintendo...and that is fine. But no right to alter those units already sold...on an aftermarket basis...and no right to use deceptive means to do it.

If they do not bullet-point every last little thing that the update is going to do, they should have no right to do it.

Because if you then accept the update, you are thus doing so, making an informed choice.

My argument has been, and always will be...about the rights of individuals to make INFORMED CHOICES.

P.S. My decision, for example, to go back to using a DS Lite...was an informed choice. I became informed Nintendo intended to do evil, rotten, sneaky, dirty things behind our backs, with the DSi. And they can't do it to the DS Lite. So I made an informed choice to no longer use a DSi.

I have no problem with Nintendo doing anything they want, I just have a problem with the manner in which they are going about it. Their sneaky, deceitful, deceptive practices...practices that also harm innocent individuals who just want to enjoy homebrew stuff.

What I fail to understand is why so many of you in this community are arguing FOR Nintendo and against the homebrew community in this. Why are you so willing to give away your rights...and so willing to give all rights to the corporations?

Are you just willing to be tricked and deceived...because you know that sooner or later someone will hack the new security, and then you will get to use your cards again?

Again, my problem is the trickery and deception.

Incidentally, yes, I do have some legal experience, having represented myself against a corporation for wrongful termination. It took me five years, but I eventually won my case. And I did so acting as my own attorney. And I won, because they were dead-bang wrong...and I was right.

I contend that Nintendo is dead-bang wrong in the methods they are using.

 

[syko5150]

well i don't update my DSi i have no care in the world to play online or do anything wifi so it doesn't affect me at all so basically it only affects people who want to go online with their DSi so basically they arent changing your product but changing the online features of it.

 

[Kalisiin]

well i don't update my DSi i have no care in the world to play online or do anything wifi so it doesn't affect me at all so basically it only affects people who want to go online with their DSi so basically they arent changing your product but changing the online features of it.

Very true.
And so you are making an informed choice to not go online with your DSi...or to use any online features. And if that was all they were doing, there would be no argument from me. The fact still remains that they are changing the firmware inside your device, on an aftermarket basis...and are using deceptive means to obtain the end user's agreement to do so.

 

[syko5150]

well i don't update my DSi i have no care in the world to play online or do anything wifi so it doesn't affect me at all so basically it only affects people who want to go online with their DSi so basically they arent changing your product but changing the online features of it.

Very true.
And so you are making an informed choice to not go online with your DSi...or to use any online features. And if that was all they were doing, there would be no argument from me. The fact still remains that they are changing the firmware inside your device, on an aftermarket basis...and are using deceptive means to obtain the end user's agreement to do so.

well no you still have the choice if you want to upgrade to 1.4 or not they don't force you but if you want to use certain features you have to upgrade so they don't force you into it its still your choice but with the ability to use things like the dsistore or w/e they force you into updating your firmware but its optional.

 

[Kalisiin]

well i don't update my DSi i have no care in the world to play online or do anything wifi so it doesn't affect me at all so basically it only affects people who want to go online with their DSi so basically they arent changing your product but changing the online features of it.

Very true.
And so you are making an informed choice to not go online with your DSi...or to use any online features. And if that was all they were doing, there would be no argument from me. The fact still remains that they are changing the firmware inside your device, on an aftermarket basis...and are using deceptive means to obtain the end user's agreement to do so.

well no you still have the choice if you want to upgrade to 1.4 or not they don't force you but if you want to use certain features you have to upgrade so they don't force you into it its still your choice but with the ability to use things like the dsistore or w/e they force you into updating your firmware but its optional.

But they STILL don't tell you everything the "required" update will do...so it's still deceptive and crappy. and should have no legal force, because the consent is obtained
A - under duress
B - using deceptive means

If they tell you everything the update will do...and THEN you choose to update...that is one thing.
Likewise...if they tell you everything, and then you make an informed choice to not update, and thus no longer have access to certain online features..that, too, is an informed choice.

We keep arguing in circles here, and I keep coming back to the principle of INFORMED consent.

Nothing you can say is going to knock me off that track.

I am all about empowering people with knowledge, that they may make informed decisions.

They have every right to block you from the DSiWare store for any reason or no reason at all. What they DON'T (or shouldn't) have a right to do...is to "update" your firmware...without you have FYULL KNOWLEDGE of what the "update" involves...meaning you know EVERY thing it will do...thus you can then make an informed choice...

Do I want to accept those terms...and have access to the online features? OR
Do I not accept those terms...and thus, accept the consequence of not being able to access those features?

They did not fully disclose. That is my issue.

Without full disclosure there can not be INFORMED consent.