Nintendo is back at it again with their latest and most well known franchise, the DMCA, and this time they went after quite a handful of GitHub repositories with their DMCA strikes.

The latest and most notable repository attacked by Nintendo's DMCA is the "sigpatch-updater" homebrew application by iTotalJustice (alongside all of its forks) just a few days ago. This isn't the first time for iTotalJustice however, since he got another DMCA takedown previously for the standalone "sipatches" repository before back in 2022. The application worked as its title implies, by basically updating the signature patches from within the Nintendo Switch console itself. This seems like yet another instance of Nintendo trying to stomp on any kind of possibility to run unsigned software on a homebrewed Nintendo Switch, be it actual homebrew applications or pirated ones. Even though the source code is down, the patcher itself seems to still be hosted in other websites, alongside other DMCA taken-down tools.

Unfortunately, "sigpatch-updater" isn't the only software hit with the latest attacks by Nintendo and its crusade against copyright-circumvention tactics, as Incognito_RCM by ScandalUK (this one still being live at the time of writing), kezplez-nx by shchmue, and another fork of Lockpick_RCM by SpaceNX have also been the target for Nintendo's DMCA, adding up to the instances of Nintendo going after homebrew projects for the Nintendo Switch, with one of the first reported being the original Lockpick_RCM, which got being taken down last year with a DMCA notice by Nintendo's lawyers, claiming the same copyright circumvention tactic.

With all of the current legal events taking place in regards to Nintendo both in regards to homebrew apps and Switch emulator Yuzu, it's most likely that they will continue to scour the internet and GitHub repositories for any kind of semblance of alleged copyright-circumvention methods, applications, or even guides to dump Switch keys of any sort. The legal clarity regarding fair and personal use when it comes to copyright-protected technological devices are still unclear to make any kind of counter-claim against their DMCA notices.

iTotalJustice GitHub
DMCA notice for the "sigpatch-updater" repository
DMCA notices for Lockpick_RCM, Incognito_RCM and kezplez-nx
"sigpatch-updater" backup at Archive.org

 

[raging_chaos]

Your response is ambiguous. Have you ever hacked an xbox or switch with just a paperclip & nothing else?

No, you're not just trying to move the goalpost to present my point as a strawman argument. Many people have hacked an OG Xbox with just a paperclip and have turned them into Linux machines/Kodi devices. Plenty of US law supports the fact that anyone can write and run software on anything they own out there, it's what you do after you gain access to the hardware layer that determines if what you are doing is illegal in your jurisdiction. If you use intellectual property to market and/or monetize a Switch emulator or hack then Nintendo comes after you and tries to sue/bankrupt you into oblivion just like when Sony went after Bleem.

So those lawsuits are irrelevant, it's a different world now.

All those lawsuits have set precedent and are relevant, that's how the legal system works. Trademark enforcement failed. Copyright enforcement failed. The only thing that has yet to be fully contested is DMCA because none of these homebrew teams have the revenue to take it to court like Atari, EA, and Accolade did. The closest thing has been Geohot vs Sony, Sony had to settle there because they knew they couldn't win in court and a loss for Sony would have meant Jailbreaking was legal (a settlement is not an admission of fault or a win/loss for either party).

US law does not apply globally, what is illegal to you doesn't mean it applies elsewhere and projects like these always find homes where it may be perfectly legal in another part of the world. This is the only goalpost.

 

[smf]

No, you're not just trying to move the goalpost to present my point as a strawman argument. Many people have hacked an OG Xbox with just a paperclip and have turned them into Linux machines/Kodi devices.

No, they did not. The paper clip is useless without the save game exploit and the hacked bios that you flash to it.

The switch will only go into RCM with a paper clip, which does nothing without injecting an exploit.

So you are 100% wrong that you "just" need a paperclip.

All those lawsuits have set precedent and are relevant, that's how the legal system works. Trademark enforcement failed. Copyright enforcement failed. The only thing that has yet to be fully contested is DMCA because none of these homebrew teams have the revenue to take it to court like Atari, EA, and Accolade did. The closest thing has been Geohot vs Sony, Sony had to settle there because they knew they couldn't win in court and a loss for Sony would have meant Jailbreaking was legal (a settlement is not an admission of fault or a win/loss for either party).

Nintendo have been winning lots of lawsuits against flash card makers and Gary Opa just got out of jail for his involvement with SXOS, so I won't be taking legal advice from you.

 

[raging_chaos]

Here's your initial reply where I said "homebrew code that doesn't borrow from someone else's code is completely legal", the rabbit hole you're trying to dig with the rest of what you've said since then doesn't matter.

Selling something to run the homebrew on a games console is not legal though.

You're blindly oversimplifying a complex legal issue that doesn't have universal application to all situations. Selling 'something' to enable two software programs to work together isn't inherently illegal if it falls within the exemptions provided by law. Homebrew that doesn't infringe on copyright isn't illegal and selling a product to run it isn't either when it falls under interoperability and DMCA exemptions.

Your understanding of when someone violates US law is flawed. US laws prohibit breaking digital locks (TPMs) without authorization. Simply entering RCM mode with a paperclip jumper and then injecting a payload to launch Linux (or Atmosphere) doesn't violate anything because the user is not breaking any TPMs at any point in the chain. It's when a person tampers with those software TPMs for non-interoperability reasons like to start playing pirated games in combination with sigpatches that they start getting in legal trouble.

None of what I've said at any point is legal advice but what I do know is you have no clue on how a defense against Nintendo would even be formed. There are plenty of supporting videos on Youtube by active lawyers that have gone in-depth on Nintendo's overreaching actions and what is and isn't allowed under DMCA, there's also MVG's videos covering the topic and how he would have fought it as a dev himself, or anything said in this thread with a quote from a post by Osaka35 spoilered below.

Spoiler: But it's inherently legal. You've got to separate "code" from "hardware" in your head.

It'll vary from country to country. Big companies want to make it illegal so they can control more. But it's inherently legal. You've got to separate "code" from "hardware" in your head.

Nintendo and Sony recently lost a lawsuit where opening up a console voided the warranty. I forget the details.

Basically, they own the code and own its distribution. When you buy something, you own the physical goods, including the hardware and the right to use the code. Think of it as if you were buying a book. You own the physical book, and can read it as much as you like. And you can't copy the words or rewrite using the same words and sell it or reuse the words as if they were your own. But you can certainly make some art out of the pages/words out of the book, or resell the book. They don't have the right to tell you how to use the pages, even if it does have their words on it, except the limits i just talked about.

The breaking of the "lock" is illegal, but it's a bit fuzzy. Mainly because it has to adhere to what I said above. They're protecting their software and its distribution, thus why you can't "circumvent protections". They want to make it seem like breaking their locks is the equivalent of trying to mess with their distribution. Which is a bit silly, but they're trying to protect their ability to distribute in a world of pirates and super easy to duplicate digital stuff. That struggle aside, you still own the hardware and have rights to usage of the software. You can't redistribute their code or call it your own, but you should be able to do whatever else you want with it. So there's a bit of argumentation on how to appease both sides.

So as far as homebrew goes, since you're running your own code, it's perfectly legal in most places. You own the hardware and the rights to use their software on that particular piece of hardware. running homebrew is the equivalent of writing notes in the margin of a book you bought. You can do it and resell it just fine, as the licenses are attached to the hardware/book. But you can't use their code and distribute it, because that's more like copying pages from a book and selling those.

Just don't confuse "legal" with "moral" some places give companies far more rights than they should for whatever anti-consumer reasons. Hope I'm making sense.