Hacking Nintendo 3ds anti piracy theory

[Rydian]

In a civil lawsuit it's all about the phrasing, and don't think Nintendo's law team wouldn't be able to describe overwriting your flashcard's firmware as "data loss due to incompatibility issues" that they had warned you about.

Big deal, half of the code on that flashcard was Nintendo's IP in the first place.If direct portions of the Nintendo check disc they run before a repair can be recovered, I've no doubt somebody will be able to prove it was done on purpose.

There's no IP used unless it's a DSi cart updated to run on 1.4. Currently we don't know what sort of security measures the 3DS will take and how flash carts will have to get around it, IIRC flash carts for firmware 1.4 on the DSi are the only game backup devices that have this potential issue.

And you know what? They're not damaging your hardware.Normatt would insult you for such a statement.
Corrupting the firmware renders the hardware inoperable.
Inoperable, unusable, no longer fit for intended use, "broken".

Again: you were using a not-exactly-legal, unlicenced third party device to circumvent their copy protection?I wasn't aware that SD cards for the wii had to be licensed, but Nintendo makes no claims/threats against those.

QUOTE(Veho @ Aug 7 2010, 06:55 AM) There's no way you could paint that as your "civil right".

I never used that phrase, and I wouldn't have to. I could be plugging it in with the intent to play some homebrew, Nintendo purposely corrupts the firmware (rendering the cart a brick, inoperable), they are at fault.




1 - Flash carts are not illegal.
2 - Bricking a device by corrupting the firmware breaks the device.
3 - Nintendo purposely bricking a device which is in your possession would be illegal. (PDF, just one law example.)
4 - An EULA is overruled by actual law in cases where it contradicts it.

Hell, Nintendo accounts for that last point in the Wii's EULA.

QUOTE

Article 16: Governing Law, Legal Jurisdiction, and Interpretation of Agreement

This agreement and any claims arising under it is governed by the laws of the state of Washington, without reference to conflict of laws principles. If you want to sue us with respect to a claim related to this agreement, your lawsuit must be brought in King County, Washington, and you consent to the jurisdiction of courts located there. You agree that if any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, that part will no longer apply and will be considered deleted from the agreement, but all other parts of the agreement will remain in effect. You further agree that we may replace the invalid part by a provision which reflects or comes closest to reflecting the initial intention. If we choose not to enforce a provision of the agreement, you agree that we are not waiving our right to do so in the future.

Nintendo right there is saying "If any part of this contradicts law, you still have to follow the other parts, and we can replace the contradicting part with one that abides by the law."

 

[Veho]

C4 is a highly-dangerous item that can cause death and destruction and is illegal to possess without the proper license or training.

A flash cart does not fit ANY of those criteria.And raping a 7-year-old is a horrible monstruous act and illegal no matter what and can't be included in the EULA, no matter what, yet you brought it up as an example. I was simply giving an equally ludicrous example. Since you obviously can't see the difference between disabling a flashcard and raping a 7-year-old, and claiming that both are equal when it comes to legality, then I can bring up something equally ridiculous to counter it. It's a strawman argument that has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

Raping children is illegal, disabling your flashcard isn't. You can't, ever, compare the two.

Overwriting the firmware WOULD be a physical change, since the firmware is stored in a physical medium on the cart itself.

Really? Are you serious?


Fine, if you insist on splitting hairs to that extent and follow the definition that far down, I'll just say that "changing the contents of the physical medium" isn't "physically damaging" to that particular medium, since it's meant to be re-writeable. So no matter how you want to twist it, it's still not "damaging" your card. Do you really want to play semantics here? What's stopping you from simply reflashing the card to make it usable again? The mere fact you don't have the necessary hardware? That's nobody's fault but your own.


QUOTE

If direct portions of the Nintendo check disc they run before a repair can be recovered, I've no doubt somebody will be able to prove it was done on purpose.

Here's a nice example. Take a clearly marked electric fence. You try jumping it (for whatever reason) and get an electric shock. Can you sue anyone for that? You'll have no trouble proving the owner of the property electrified the fence on purpose. No trouble at all. But then what? You really think you can sue anyone if you get shocked? Good luck.






Look, we could do this forever, but it boils down to this: you found a few laws that you believe apply here, and you think that they would stop Nintendo from raping you up the butt with tentacles. I posit that they won't, and that should you try to quote them in court, you'd get laughed at and dismissed out of hand.

 

[Midna]

OBJECTION! There is clearly a contradiction in your statement.

 

[jimwhat]

Here's a nice example. Take a clearly marked electric fence. You try jumping it (for whatever reason) and get an electric shock. Can you sue anyone for that? You'll have no trouble proving the owner of the property electrified the fence on purpose. No trouble at all. But then what? You really think you can sue anyone if you get shocked? Good luck.

Actually, there was a case a few years ago where a burglar injured himself while breaking in a house. He sued the home owned and won. I don't remember what country it happened in, but it just goes to show that you never know what can happen in court.

 

[Rydian]

C4 is a highly-dangerous item that can cause death and destruction and is illegal to possess without the proper license or training.

A flash cart does not fit ANY of those criteria.And raping a 7-year-old is a horrible monstruous act and illegal no matter what and can't be included in the EULA, no matter what, yet you brought it up as an example.I brought it up to show that something in an EULA cannot override law.

I was simply giving an equally ludicrous example.It wasn't being used the same way mine was, so I didn't really get that, I thought you were still on the "the device itself is illegal" point.

QUOTE(Veho @ Aug 7 2010, 12:43 PM) Fine, if you insist on splitting hairs to that extent and follow the definition that far down, I'll just say that "changing the contents of the physical medium" isn't "physically damaging" to that particular medium, since it's meant to be re-writeable. So no matter how you want to twist it, it's still not "damaging" your card. Do you really want to play semantics here? What's stopping you from simply reflashing the card to make it usable again? The mere fact you don't have the necessary hardware? That's nobody's fault but your own.

Woah woah woah, hold up.

1 - A BRICK CANNOT BE REFLASHED, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A BRICK. Most Acekard "bricking" is not actual bricking (just like most "hacking" is actually phishing) since the card itself still works to the point that it will accept new firmware flashed to it in the normal way. When you get into full corruption of a device's firmware (such as with a PSP or a Wii modding gone wrong, or some routers even with a bad firmware update), the device itself is not to the point that it will accept firmware (without "surgery"), THE DEVICE ITSELF IS BROKEN.

2 - The PS3 firmware update that disabled OtherOS? Hi, I keep mentioning that, stop forgetting it please. Sony is removing features of a device, rendering those features inoperable, thus they have multiple class-action suits.

QUOTE(Veho @ Aug 7 2010, 12:43 PM)

Look, we could do this forever, but it boils down to this: you found a few laws that you believe apply here, and you think that they would stop Nintendo from raping you up the butt with tentacles. I posit that they won't, and that should you try to quote them in court, you'd get laughed at and dismissed out of hand.

I've quoted ACTUAL FUCKING LAW MULTIPLE TIMES and have linked to MULTIPLE PIECES of relavent documentation.

You've posted jack shit to back up your side.

1 - Flash carts as a concept are not illegal.
2 - Bricking a device by corrupting the firmware breaks the device.
3 - Nintendo purposely bricking a device which is in your possession would be illegal. (PDF, just one law example.)
4 - An EULA is overruled by actual law in cases where it contradicts it.

Try disproving those with ANYTHING resembling an actual law or official source, and then maybe I'll continue this debate.

 

[Midna]

*Claps for Rydian*

Kudos, you know stuff

 

[Veho]

2 - The PS3 firmware update that disabled OtherOS? Hi, I keep mentioning that, stop forgetting it please. Sony is removing features of a device, rendering those features inoperable, thus they have multiple class-action suits.

Yeah, and how's that holding up?

 

[Midna]

...

Nice rebuttal. Six words.

 

[Veho]

Nice rebuttal. Six words.

Yup. Elegant, isn't it?

 

[MissingNo._]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!

 

[jimwhat]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!

lol Probably not. Most people are to hard headed to change their opinion.

 

[Veho]

I'm just saying, if they warn you in advance that their product will destroy flashcards, and you agree to it, you really can't complain if later on the product actually does destroy your flashcard. You might quote any law you want, any lawsuit you want to start belongs firmly in this category.

 

[Puregamer]

someone should really delete this thread...

 

[jimwhat]

I'm just saying, if they warn you in advance that their product will destroy flashcards, and you agree to it, you really can't complain if later on the product actually does destroy your flashcard. You might quote any law you want, any lawsuit you want to start belongs firmly in this category.

True, but the problem is that most people who will use the 3DS will be under 18. In the U.S. a contract that is signed by a minor can be ruled null because of immaturity.

QUOTEContracts with Minors are Voidable

In general, individuals must possess the requisite "legal capacity" to enter into a valid and binding contract. Contract law regards such legal capacity as the capability of understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction. In most states, minors do not have capacity to enter into contracts until they reach the age of majority, usually 18 years of age or older. However, this does not mean that minors may not make contracts at all. Rather, the law is designed to protect minors by discouraging other parties from entering into contracts with them. Accordingly, contracts with minors may or may not be binding, depending on the circumstances.



Incapacity of Minors

In order to create an enforceable contract, both parties must have maturity and capacity. If one of those elements is lacking from the bargaining process, one consequence could be the invalidation of the entire contract. Minors, for example, do not possess the legal capacity to enter into contracts with other parties. This is generally because minors are not thought to possess the ability to perceive and process all of the necessary information to make an adequately rational decision. However, this does not mean that minors cannot make contracts, it just means that courts may not enforce the contracts that minors enter into.

Voidability of Contracts with Minors
Contract law, regarding the incapacity of minors to enter contracts, is designed not only to protect minors from their lack of maturity but also to deter others from entering into contracts with minors. The law recognizes that minors might be particularly susceptible to deception. Typically, contracts with minors are "voidable" at the option of the minor but binding on the adult. This generally means that minors can repudiate, or back out of their contracts with other parties, but the other parties are bound by those agreements.

That would be Nintendo biggest problem. Even if the person signed the client it would be hard for them to enforce it if the person was a minor.

 

[Midna]

And Nintendo has a lot of minors on it's consoles.

 

[shamiko_]

they could get parents to sign it instead

 

[jimwhat]

they could get parents to sign it instead

Yeah, but let's be honest. How many kids are going to go to their parents just so their parents could press 'agree' on the EULA screen.

 

[pachura]

The idea of bricking flashcards by uploading special, faulty firmware updates is completely ridiculous

Let's forget the legal stuff, even if Nintendo wanted to implement something like this, the makers of flashcards would release new versions of their hardware e.g. with physical locks "read only except save states" (remember floppy disks ?), or require firmware updates to be digitally signed.

It is safe to assume Nintendo will go the PSP/Xbox way:
- releasing subsequent firmware updates patching exploits/backdoors; these updates will be optional, but newer games will require updated firmware
- if a flashcard/hack-in attempt is detected, user is permanently banned from online services

If they decide to go even further, they might implement online game activation; you buy a game in a local store, but have to activate it online (and again, your account might get locked). But the idea of requiring constant WiFi connection is totally laughable; lots of people play on trains, on planes etc. where there's no WiFi.

 

[Nepeta]

they could get parents to sign it instead

Yeah, but let's be honest. How many kids are going to go to their parents just so their parents could press 'agree' on the EULA screen.

Rofl yeah, really. A lot of parents just instantly put Agree anyways..

 

[evandixon]

More likely that the anti-piracy code is in each game, in addition to the system.

It isn't even out yet, so we have no way of really knowing.