You couldn't, that's the point. it locked your entire system till you pushed accept
Hacking Question Wouldnt it be violating some law to restrict access to downloading the rest of games like L.A. Noire
- Thread starter TimeMaster
- Start date
- Views 12,138
- Replies 143
- Likes 7
I thought you said they had to add that option because it was illegal, so what happened when you clicked it? I assume it would give a message such as "You can only use this system if you agree" and prompt you again to agree/disagree. An unnecessary extra step.
that I don't know, I just know there wasn't a deny button at the beginning. Just an accept button wich I pushed so I don't know about later what it did do. Legal it would be for them that you couldn't use the Nintendo network but locking the entire system was illegal. If it was legal then you could push deny and just keep using your Wii u on the firmware you were at without using the Nintendo network but how they went about it locking the entire system wasn't and they got called out for that
Last edited by kumikochan,
what she means in the EU (not anywhere elese) It's illegal to lock you out until you agree as to oppose "rollback" the update to the previous version get it now? (I understand it and I live in the states) as for windows you can Rollback to the previous build/OS if you don't agree to my knowlege at least in E editions
So when you clicked "Accept", you were entered into the system and allowed to use the OS, but bound by Nintendo's terms. The EULA already states that if you don't agree then you can't use the their software. They're not saying you can't use the hardware, that is illegal. Build a time machine with it for all they care. But again, you only bought the license to the OS, and if you don't agree to the rules, you can't use it. It's just like high school, you have a right to education, but if you don't follow the Code of Conduct you can't go to school.
Listen, there wasn't a deny button at the beginning and it would lock your entire system. Yes they locked you from using the entire hardware. It was illegal what they did and got called out. For it to be legal you would had to have a deny button wich would not let you use the Nintendo network but you could still use the system but that wasn't the case. There wasn't a deny button and only an accept button and as long as you didn't push that button you would get locked out from your entire system. So the games you own and so forth would all be locked from you if you didn't accept. Is that so hard to get that that was entirely illegal ?
eh sorry whats with these guys with female anime pics anyways if even a guy in the states can understand EU laws anyone should
Ok it makes more sense now. What's still giving me a bit of doubt is that the government would've confronted Nintendo on that issue, not other organizations. The government would've interfered if it was illegal, which they may have, but we don't know.
A lot of organisations in Europe work for departments wich then work for the union and countries and so forth
That's kind of weird but okay. The US sometimes seems like a total other planet.
when it comes to regulations it is. I see it more like they protect corporations more in the US than the consumer intself and in Europe it being the other way around. Lot of things different here like a lot of products are banned in food here to protect consumers, no GMO's to protect consumersm and to keep farmers independent, a minimum of 2 years warranty instead of 1 year in the US and so forth. There's a ton that is different
Last edited by kumikochan,
I mean in the US I see the government protect consumers as much as the corps. Citing the example I used earlier, when Sony and Nintendo's (as well as others) policies on repair were looked over, the FTC did warn them, and they had to comply. But when Nintendo sued two sites because of the ROMs, they won. I feel the US has created a nice tug of war between businesses and consumers, and for all practical purposes it works.
I’m going to say that you’re entirely wrong for one simple reason.
It is not reasonable to expect a company to maintain servers forever. If you bought this game 10 years from now and the servers didn’t exist, there is no way to reasonably expect access to the full game. You can’t tell a company that they must maintain a distribution network.
By that same logic, other factors can limit your ability to download the remaining files for this game. The game box makes it clear that the entire game is not included, and access to Nintendo’s online network is required to download the full game. If that network doesn’t exist, or you are restricted from accessing it, it’s no one’s obligation to compensate you.
yeah it is. But the sad thing is more and more people agree with what corporations are doing and by doing so gives them even more power in the future and less power as a consumer 10 years from now. It's sad that so many do defend companies because of allegiance wich is ridiculous to even have.
Class action lawsuit. Get a bunch of console hackers together who can't play la noire because Nintendo blocked it due to console hacking. When it comes to this stuff i think class action lawsuits are your best bet.
I happen to be a class action lawsuit lawyer if anyone who is banned would like to retain my services. Together we can best them!
I happen to be a class action lawsuit lawyer if anyone who is banned would like to retain my services. Together we can best them!
I've always held the view that most of these types of corporations break the law all the time and only change practices when forced to. Why wouldn't they take advantage for as long as possible? The problem is it takes way too much time and money to challenge them so they get away with it.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Megacorps are always protected. And if you insist on trying to take them down, they will find a way to shut you up.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
