Last year saw the arrest of two members of Team Xecuter, the hacking group behind the infamous SX OS. MaxConsole administrator and GBAtemp user GaryOPA was a part of that, and was extradited from Canada to the United States, where he would face charges. While he initially claimed he was innocent, the opposing prosecution did not accept the defense of SX OS merely allowing Nintendo Switch users to play homebrew software, and asserted that the main goal of Team Xecuter's exploit was to play pirated copies of games.

Faced with 11 felony counts, Bowser has just pleaded guilty to two of them: trafficking in circumvention devices and conspiracy to circumvent technological measures. According to the court, Team Xecuter has caused an estimated number between $65 million to $150 million in losses to video game companies.

This means that Bowser will not have to go to trial, with the plea deal also waiving the other 9 criminal charges. Despite that, he still may face prison time, and as part of the deal, has agreed to pay Nintendo for restitution, to the tune of $4.5 million. Bowser will also have to consent to the destruction or give up the technology seized from his home during his arrest, which includes around 30TB of hard drives, micro SDs, and flash drives, along with laptops, phones, modchips, and hacked game consoles.

Source

 

[dude1]

No, they want you to stop pirating games.

Emulation is almost always piracy too.

as I say even if for arguments sake I granted that as 100% fact that all console moder's are pirates no exceptions and I'll add the addendum of everyone ever involved with emulation only uses it to pirate no exceptions, that doesn't change what I'm saying.

so they want PEOPLE to stop pirating games because they believe in property rights.
if they didnt they'd have no right to dictate who or who doesnt have the right to the magic 1's & 0's that is the "their" game.

so they have hardware they create in this case its a game console but as I say the principle applies to any other consumer good (PC, TV, Car etc.)
once they've sold their hardware to me it is mine, what gives them the moral right to dictate what I can or cannot do with it?

are you infavor of car munfacurers dictating where you can and cannot drive, TV manufacturers dictating what you can or cannot watch?
im guessing not and im guessing if they tried you would think you had the moral high ground not them in that argument.

even though like the console modding scene people can use a car illegally or a TV illegally but that doesnt mean everyone that uses one is a criminal nor should everyone be treated like one by immoral corporations looking for a power grab after taking your money for said product.

like I say they want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[smf]

are you infavor of car munfacurers dictating where you can and cannot drive,

There are laws about where you can and can't drive. New cars have safety features that are designed to stop you driving into things that you want to.

The problem you have is that courts believe that most consoles are modified for piracy, so they passed a law that banned it. I think they are correct in their assumption and I suspect that you think they are correct to but don't want to accept it.

Nintendo didn't introduce the law, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You haven't established how they want their cake and eat it.

 

[dude1]

There are laws about where you can and can't drive.

and cops can fine or arrest, suspend licences etc. on people committing traffic offences on public land/roads, that doesnt mean because people have the ability to commit crimes in cars vehicles are only dictated to drive to and from predetermined places allowed by that cars manufacurer.
also you can drive where you want on your own land, the car doesnt stop driving on dirt roads, in fields etc.

you can even buy a vehicle without a license or insurance no one prevents you from utilizing that once its your property but break a law and charges/legal filings could happen.

Nintendo doesnt give us a unlocked console and only locks it down for convicted pirates, nor do they unlock the device when requested by a purchaser not guilty of piracy.

The problem you have is that courts believe that most consoles are modified for piracy, so they passed a law that banned it. I think they are correct in their assumption and I suspect that you think they are correct to but don't want to accept it.

I think whether they or I believe that or not is different to whether companies should or should not have the right to dictate access and usage rights to my private property.

as I said from the beginning its not disputed they have the legal right to, I'd argue they dont have the moral right to.

many laws throughout history have been unjust and immoral.
its not about me accepting anything or not

Nintendo didn't introduce the law, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You haven't established how they want their cake and eat it.

they like many other software publishers and hardware companies often are taking advantage of a corrupt laws to suit their means.
not to mention utilizing lobby groups for legalized bribery to get the laws past in the 1st place and strengthened over the years.
they are not the sole cause but just because they aren't the elected official that imposed the laws doesn't mean they are not complicit in their abuse.

Nintendo doesnt need to release their hardware locked down, they also have the ability to unlock it at will, in this instance they are the roadblock.

they are the problem.

I'll ignore legal backups, emulation, linux, media centres and home-brew for arguments sake.

why should a pirate feel morally inferior for "stealing" access to a copy of Nintendo's software titles if at the same time, Nintendo are simultaneously "stealing" full access to that pirate's (and millions of other people's) hardware?

I can agree both pirates and Nintendo Co., Ltd./ anyone their involved in DRM are both immoral if you want to agrue that, but thats not the dispute you started.

your claim is everyone should loose their property rights to hardware they purchased because the manufacturer of that hardware wants to stop a small percentage of people that pirate.

so in essence the many (all) should suffer to stop the few, seems like a pretty Immoral stance to me.

I say if I had to pick one as the moral party its the one who paid for the hardware who has yet to be proven to have broken the law and till then is innocent until proven guilty.

You haven't established how they want their cake and eat it.

they want you to pay as if you bought something yet they want to dictate your usage of it as if they never sold it to you in the 1st place when it comes to hardware.

they argue they dont sell you the game (1's & 0's make up the binary, the contained assets etc.)
they claim instead no you bought a license to view/use that game.

yet when it comes to for example the virtual consoles etc. they force you to buy a 2nd licence as if your 1st never existed.
morally it should be transferable but they offer no such transference mechanism or a way to surrender your existing license in exchange for a identical one on the newer/different platform.

(yes its not unqiue to Nintendo, its endemic to the media industry but once again we are not arguing laws but morality)

3rd is Nintendo abusing laws with lawsuits for example with mod chips or game cheating devices in the past.
many of those don't use Nintendo code and yet the sue on copyright grounds acting like they all do.
taking advantage of the aged largely tech illiterate judiciary.
(once again not unique to Nintendo but I never claimed it was)

 

[smf]

and cops can fine or arrest, suspend licences etc. on people committing traffic offences on public land/roads, that doesnt mean because people have the ability to commit crimes in cars vehicles are only dictated to drive to and from predetermined places allowed by that cars manufacurer.

So the problem with your analogy is that Nintendo aren't the ones that decided that you can't modify them.

There are modifications that you can make to your car that are illegal.

So trying to apply console modifications to cars, the car is the console. Nobody is banning you from using the car or the console. But neither of them can be used in any way that you wish, there are laws that prevent you from making certain modifications to them.

You might really want to modify your car, but if the modification is against one of those laws then you will get in trouble.

They sold me a car, but the "government" says I can't put spikes on the wheels. It's like you don't even own it! You should have the right to fit flame throwers and nuclear missile launchers to your car. Just for decorative purposes of course, it doesn't mean I'm going to use them.

Do you see? It's the same.

 

[dude1]

So the problem with your analogy is that Nintendo aren't the ones that decided that you can't modify them.

wrong, they decided you cannot
they wrote the software on the system, they decided to design the hardware so it damages itself to prevent downgrades (e-fuses), they incorporated checks in all the software to care about the arrangement in the fuses to begin with.
they signed and encrypted the firmwares so any such limitations can't be removed.
and they offer no service to otherwise bypass, downgrade etc. to YOUR hardware if YOU ask them too.

there is no way they are nt responsible for those choices.

There are modifications that you can make to your car that are illegal.

wrong there are modifications you cannot do to your car if you want it to remain street legal on PUBLIC roads. AKA ones you don't own.
eg. some jurisdictions have limits to headlight strength, under lighting, low riders, dark tinted windows etc.
you'll note that every jurisdiction has different rules for example some states/provinces allow low riders, dark tinted windows etc.

however if its on private land/roads you can do what you wish , if your modification breaks another law if caught breaking those laws you can be charged with those other laws.

so the correct analogy is they should allow me to use my hardware as I see fit but if I try to connect to their network my device needs to conform to there standards.
just like a car needing to be street legal to be on non private land.

notice how I've never argued I should have a right to their network with my hardware after any changes
its almost like I understand private property rights.

So trying to apply console modifications to cars, the car is the console. Nobody is banning you from using the car or the console. But neither of them can be used in any way that you wish, there are laws that prevent you from making certain modifications to them.

You might really want to modify your car, but if the modification is against one of those laws then you will get in trouble.

see above and previous posts to already disprove this.

 

[smf]

wrong, they decided you cannot
they wrote the software on the system, they decided to design the hardware so it damages itself to prevent downgrades (e-fuses), they incorporated checks in all the software to care about the arrangement in the fuses to begin with.
they signed and encrypted the firmwares so any such limitations can't be removed.
and they offer no service to otherwise bypass, downgrade etc. to YOUR hardware if YOU ask them too.

there is no way they are nt responsible for those choices.

That is them making it hard for you to modify it, they didn't invent the law that says you can't modify it.

A car manufacturer doesn't need to make it easy for you to modify it either.

If you can't modify a switch then it just means you suck at modifying. The reason Nintendo do that is because of piracy, you know it & would admit it if it didn't destroy your argument.

You also know that if the hardware manufacturers sold the hardware without expecting you to buy games, then the hardware would not be sold for the price it was. So you want your cake and eat it.

If you got what you wanted then you wouldn't have bought a switch as it would have been too expensive & IMO kinda boring if there is nothing to hack.

see above and previous posts to already disprove this.

Saying you've disproved it, doesn't mean you have. Even if you really think you have.