Hacking Is Nintendo forcing us to pirate games or what?

[FAST6191]

If you bought a game in eshop in EU, then hack, then banned, they cannot ban you even if you violated TOS, eu laws forbids it, as they are pretty much obligated to offer you to download that game for 2 years that you aleardy payed, or offer you a workaround to download that game from other point, no matter the TOS, and in eu you do not accept a TOS, a TOS en eu is more of a suggestion than a law binding thing

Since when?

7 covers the short notice thing
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm
Equally at the bottom of that page
"Contract terms that are unfair under EU law have no legal or binding force on consumers. As long as the unfair term is not an essential element of the contract, the rest of your contract (but not the unfair term) remains valid."
and at the top
"Under EU law, standard contract terms used by traders have to be fair. This doesn't change if they're called "terms and conditions" or are part of a detailed contract that you actually have to sign."
Ergo contracts are very much a thing.

The not after point of sale thing (but at point of download/sign in/sign up/... being valid) likely being the part in 9 in the list of Potentially unfair terms that states
"Terms which bind consumers even though they could not easily have been aware of them before signing the contract."

The two year warranty law
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1677034/Two-year-warranty-EU-law.html

More for business interactions but expands upon cancellation of services a bit
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-3373_en.htm

I can't find the ruling about compensation for shuttering of online services and the one about no returns therefore but they would only be minor perks here.

and to finish it off might as well have
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/unfair-terms-explained-for-businesses-full-guide

Various parts of those links cover violation of contract (which remember is for online services in this instance, not the console itself and you would be hard pressed to argue they are one and the same when carts exist and are as readily available as they are here).

 

[smf]

If you bought a game in eshop in EU, then hack, then banned, they cannot ban you even if you violated TOS, eu laws forbids it, as they are pretty much obligated to offer you to download that game for 2 years that you aleardy payed, or offer you a workaround to download that game from other point, no matter the TOS, and in eu you do not accept a TOS, a TOS en eu is more of a suggestion than a law binding thing

They could argue in court that you violated the EUCD. Which is EU law which prevents circumventing copyright controls.

If successful then you wouldn't have clean hands. It would be like trying to make an insurance claim because you crashed after robbing a bank and being involved in a police car chase.

Of course if you had a lot of money to fight them in court then maybe you'd win, but it's unlikely to set a precedent. It's just cheaper to buy another switch.

However, I think a lot of people hack their Switch simply to use emulators, back up saves, and other completely innocent stuffs.

Most emulator users are not completely innocent, because they don't own the games they are emulating or live in a country that allows backups for interoperability purposes.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

You seem to misunderstand what I mean when I say a company's TOS can supercede the law. I don't mean that it gives the company license to break the law. I mean that the law takes the TOS into account, superseding what the law would be if there were no TOS. If you have no legal right to use the eShop unless you agree to the TOS, then you have limited legal rights regarding the eShop if you break the TOS.

If you have no legal right to rent a particular apartment if you don't agree to the TOS, then you have limited legal rights regarding that apartment if you break the TOS.

No. Law is law. You're still using invalid arguments and I'm not the only one to point this out. The TOS needs to take the law into account, not the law taking the TOS into account as you stated. That's just not how it works. You seem to be thinking that there's an argument that needs to be made where there really is none. No one is saying that there can be no consequences for breaking a TOS. We're saying that a TOS cannot supercede law, period, if said TOS would be in violation of law.

 

[kevin corms]

Lots of people did. You might have had certain information sharing settings turned off.


We're about 98% sure they detected illegitimate applications through information sharing and/or Friends List sharing and banned those users.


Your anecdotal evidence is probably of little comfort to the roughly 37% of CFW users who got banned. As I said above, you might have had certain information sharing settings turned off, and without a massive overhaul to how the 3DS operating system works, detecting the use of illegitimate applications using information sharing settings was probably the only way to detect explicit CFW usage.

Who is 98% sure? As far as I know nobody has done any kind of data mining or anything other than guess and maybe put up a poll on this website... It could be something as simple as playing a certain game or playing games from a certain source.