Hacking Question Wouldnt it be violating some law to restrict access to downloading the rest of games like L.A. Noire

[smf]

I am also talking about small claims court for a couple hundred dollars. The costs of countersuing would again probably be more than it would cost if they just didn't show up in the first place. It'd probably cost them $2-$3k (roughly £1.5-£2.5k) just to pay a lawyer to draft a complaint, go down to the courthouse, file it, and then serve you; all for what might be case for £350.

In the UK the defendant can request where the case is heard, especially if there were multiple cases. I don't know if it's the same in the US.

Nintendo likely have in house lawyers. In the ds card cases they didn't seem interested in the money, just getting people to stop using it.

I don't know how well you'd do arguing that SX OS is illegal, but your use of it isn't.

 

[TimeMaster]

It would be interesting.

1. You may be suing the wrong person. At least in the UK, it's the store you bought the product from that is legally liable to make sure it's fit for purpose.

With the disclaimer on the back of the box that modified systems may render it permanently unplayable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitchBoxArt/comments/7eukco/la_noire_box_art_without_banner/

If you were banned after buying the game, then it's likely you don't have any recourse against anyone. The game worked when you bought it, there was a warning on the box and your actions stopped it working.

If you were banned before buying the game, then you could argue that you didn't get to read the warning before purchasing and get a refund. But you'd have to show proof that you tried to get a refund from the store and you were denied. In this case you should probably sell the game second hand and sue for the difference, otherwise you haven't done enough to mitigate your losses.

2. By taking part in the class action you would be disclosing a crime, https://neurogadget.net/2016/06/24/jailbreaking-the-ps4-and-xbox-one-consoles-is-illegal/34026, which nintendo would certainly turn up to seek damages for. Bringing a case against them would save them a whole lot of time and money.



There is a scene release that includes the NSP, so you can just grab that if you need it.



If you bought the game and played it before being banned then you're ok as the necessary "update" was downloaded from eshop already.

If you downloaded the scene release of la noire, then that comes with the XCI and NSP, you need to have installed it but I guess you did.

I have a vague feeling that originally the bans nintendo were dishing out still allowed updates, but now they don't. So you may have been able to download it anyway.



Arguably by banning modified systems they are protecting actual consumers online against cheaters.

I agree their track record on people who buy their consoles and then try to pirate the shit out of all the games is poor.

What specifically did you have in mind for their anti-consumer practices?

This Thread is talking about the super ban. Not the regular ban. The regular ban denies access to playing online and the eshop, but you could still update games, however a few weeks ago they gave out "super bans" to everyone who had a regular ban. Basically it denies you access to downloading game updates. It would be different if they still let banned consoles download updates as they'd be able to download the additonal content required for games like L.A. Noire but everyone who has received a regular ban is unable to do so.

 

[smf]

This Thread is talking about the super ban. Not the regular ban. The regular ban denies access to playing online and the eshop, but you could still update games, however a few weeks ago they gave out "super bans" to everyone who had a regular ban. Basically it denies you access to downloading game updates. It would be different if they still let banned consoles download updates as they'd be able to download the additonal content required for games like L.A. Noire but everyone who has received a regular ban is unable to do so.

I know. They warn you on the box that could happen.

Also, contracts are only valid so long as the terms of the contract are legal, as has been pointed out in this thread I believe. We could sign a contract where you agree to be sold into slavery by me if I buy you a Nintendo Switch. No court is going to uphold that contract in the US or EU where slavery is illegal. It's getting a bit too far off-topic, but there are a number of ways you could attack those click-wrap licenses.

I don't think eshop purchase license agreement would be a problem, I'm not convinced the terms are that bad and you got to read them before purchase. EULA are an issue because you've already bought it before you can read the terms. If nintendo offer proof that you had infringed copyright (or they reasonably believed you to have), then I can't see a court finding in your favour.

I reckon nintendo would move to hear the case in a higher court anyway. On a complex case, the small claims court may even refuse to hear it.

 

[CMDreamer]

Lets imagine for a second, that the ban ("super ban") issued on an account is for piracy of software (aka games). That single fact, means that Nintendo is no more obligued to provide access to that account (under any terms and under any means) to their CDN.

Legally, the owner of such account has lost it's warranty on their system (as a whole, not just a single game, and access to CDN), by violating its terms of use according to Nintendo.

Period.

When we create an account on Nintendo's servers we agree on it's terms of use, if we don't stick to them, we lose access to the servers using that account.
The games are linked to an account (all to one), not inversely. This might sound complicated at first but when we imagine the opposite, it really makes sense to be as is.

 

[blahblah]

Please lock this thread.

 

[TimeMaster]

Lets imagine for a second, that the ban ("super ban") issued on an account is for piracy of software (aka games). That single fact, means that Nintendo is no more obligued to provide access to that account (under any terms and under any means) to their CDN.

Legally, the owner of such account has lost it's warranty on their system (and acces to CDN), by violating its terms of use according to Nintendo.

Period.

What if the user wasn't pirating? But was banned for the use of homebrew?

 

[smf]

What if the user wasn't pirating? But was banned for the use of homebrew?

To get a definitive answer to that you would need to buy a switch, get it banned, sue nintendo & see what happens. Although different courts don't consistently rule the same way.

I'm not sure small claims court would be appropriate, because it's quite a complex case & to file in a higher court and get representation is going to cost considerably more.

 

[TimeMaster]

To get a definitive answer to that you would need to buy a switch, get it banned, sue nintendo & see what happens. Although different courts don't consistently rule the same way.

And depends on your country too, I live in Canada and Canada has strict consumer protection laws, so more than likely here for a small claims you would win and get whatever amount requested, whether that be the price of the software or the price of the software and the system

 

[CMDreamer]

What if the user wasn't pirating? But was banned for the use of homebrew?

To be able to use homebrew, the console must be "modified" somehow, and by doing so, the warranty is void. No one really read the warranty at all?

 

[TimeMaster]

To be able to use homebrew, the console must be "modified" somehow, and by doing so, the warranty is void. No one really read the warranty at all?

But your arguement was that the user would be super banned for piracy?

 

[smf]

And depends on your country too, I live in Canada and Canada has strict consumer protection laws, so more than likely here for a small claims you would win and get whatever amount requested, whether that be the price of the software or the price of the software and the system

Canada has even stricter anti piracy laws.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/03/...st-major-anti-circumvention-copyright-ruling/

I understand this is for the people selling the anti-circumvention rather than the users. But if someone is selling something illegal, then the court will likely accept that the buyer is complicit in the illegal activity.

 

[TimeMaster]

Canada has even stricter anti piracy laws.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/03/...st-major-anti-circumvention-copyright-ruling/

Once again like I mentioned in another comment, what if the user was soley using homebrew? And could prove that every piece of software that is on their switch, whether it be backed up or not they legally own? If they got banned for using their own backups?

 

[smf]

Once again like I mentioned in another comment, what if the user was soley using homebrew? And could prove that every piece of software that is on their switch, whether it be backed up or not they legally own? If they got banned for using their own backups?

In that case they specifically mention homebrew

"However, the court rejected the argument, concluding that homebrew usage was dwarfed by infringing activity."

The court is unlikely to rule against Nintendo as they can't reasonably know whether every single violation of their policy is actually infringing copyright law.

Like if the police shoot you after you go waving a toy gun around in a bank demanding money.

Nintendo will make the argument that the vast majority of people who modify their system do it to infringe copyright or to cheat online and ruin the experience of legitimate customers, it's likely that the court will accept that as nintendo can't reasonably know your intentions at that point. It's unlikely you'll find a judge who is sympathetic to hackers.

 

[DocAmes1980]

I really don't get the point of your question

Assessing possible intellectual dishonesty. This is a place to discuss gaming topics. Not global politics. Thank you.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

So if I go into a restaurant, tell all the employees to f-off, defecate on their floor and then steal food off someones table, does it mean they cannot ban me from their establishment? Does that mean they still have to provide their service to me? Like Nintendo's service? Because that's what they are providing. A service.

 

[TimeMaster]

So if I go into a restaurant, tell all the employees to f-off, defecate on their floor and then steal food off someones table, does it mean they cannot ban me from their establishment? Does that mean they still have to provide their service to me? Like Nintendo's service? Because that's what they are providing. A service.

I think that's a bit of an extreme example

 

[Mr. Wizard]

I think that's a bit of an extreme example

No it's not, if they do not want to provide me their service it is well withing their rights. If you want a less extreme example, say I went into the kitchen area without permission, they are within their rights to tell me to leave and never come back. Why would Nintendo's service be held to any different standards? They are not, and it is clearly stated in documents.

 

[TimeMaster]

No it's not, if they do not want to provide me their service it is well withing their rights. If you want a less extreme example, say I went into the kitchen area without permission, they are within their rights to tell me to leave and never come back. Why would Nintendo's service be held to any different standards?

Mostly because it's a digital service, even if they do cdn bans I still feel like updates should be allowed

 

[Mr. Wizard]

Mostly because it's a digital service, even if they do cdn bans I still feel like updates should be allowed

Oh, so you say this restaurant should still deliver food to you? Fat chance.

Nah, everyone whining are just butthurt they happen to get caught so easily. There is no legal recourse.

 

[deinonychus71]

Mostly because it's a digital service, even if they do cdn bans I still feel like updates should be allowed

The "I feel it should be allowed" is up to them, there is absolutely no legal obligation from Nintendo.

Remember, it's the pirates fault if we get such closed systems, and it's definitely the cheaters and pirates fault if we don't have offline backup by now. It doesn't mean that Nintendo is handling it well (in the case of backup, they're awful), but it'd be nice sometimes to see fingers pointed at the source of the problem sometimes: cheaters and pirates.