Nintendo moves to ban online access to all Switch devices owned by alleged "Hackers" (read: Anybody breaking Nintendo EULA)

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, and that's still not going to hold up in court regardless of how stupid you find the law.  Again, ignorance of the law doesn't hold up in court.  If you want to change said laws then get off the forum and become a lawmaker.  Because if caught you can be charged with a form of theft aka piracy.

I didn't say the law was stupid because Nintendo doesn't makes the law: Their legal team can write whatever they want on their EULA that doesn't makes it legal.

 

See the recent story on warranty void if removed labels for more on companies trying to give themselves authority they might not have.

[AvocadosGuac]

33 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You can stop right there: If I pirated your company's game, I did not stole your game. Because you can still sell original copies of said game.

 

Stealing implies not only that you get a thing but that the other person loses the ability to profit from said thing because you now have that thing.

 

The closer (although still incorrect) analogy would be counterfeiting a product, not stealing.

 

We have different types of crimes because they affect the victims differently: stop equating piracy to theft that's just not accurate.

 

 

YOU can stop right there. Piracy IS stealing. Doesn't matter how you look at it. You are not paying for a game, that you can still buy from a developer. That makes you a pirate. No, you should not be proud of piracy. No, piracy is not good. No, it really is stealing. If you're too poor to afford a game, then why do you own that console? YOu should be putting that money into something that is more needed. Save for college etc.

[Itereus]

12 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

 This is what also caught my eye. Nintendo went a step further and banned the account of the user and what I understood the "person" (as in they banned every account linked to that person who has had even one hacked device). Account wide ban is already quite bad, because it may also stop the user from using Nintendos services on their other devices linked to that account whether or not they are "hacked". But at least it seems accounts are being banned from using Nintendos Switch network capabilities, meaning if banned person went and bought a new Switch, didn't mod it anyway, used the same account, the Switch is banned.

 

This also kind of wakens a new question. What if a banned person used the banned account on a new Switch and sold it to someone. Would the device still be banned from the network even when it's unmodified, owned by a different person and used with a different unbanned account? If so, that would really be an overshot from Nintendo.

This might be problematic, not because a hacked device shouldn't be banned, but because banning a user associated with a hacked device opens up a can of worms.

Scenario:

A friend logs onto my Switch. We play some games. Then a month later I hack the Switch and go online. Nintendo detects this, and bans all accounts on that Switch. My friend who has no connection to the hack receives a ban.

 

BUT! Thus far we only have this one(?) article and incident. As far as I know, there has been no public stance from Nintendo on this. Honestly, they should just state their policy regarding this. IMO it's OK to ban a hacked device from accessing the online service of Nintendo. There really is no excuse, you can do as you will with your device, but the consequence is that you're banned from accessing a seperate service not included with the Switch. This is especially true when they launch the paid online service.

[AvocadosGuac]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

See the recent story on warranty void if removed labels for more on companies trying to give themselves authority they might not have.

That's not even close to what we're arguing here.

Arguing that a EULA is bullshit, vs Nintendo arguing that they are protecting their player base, is stupid and you'll lose in court all day.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Jrock said:

YOU can stop right there. Piracy IS stealing. Doesn't matter how you look at it.

You seem to disagree with yourself:

 

Quote

You are not paying for a game, that you can still buy from a developer.

If you can still buy it from the developer, you didn't steal it, you copied it, illegally.

 

Why? Because of what you said: even if I copy the game or obtain a copy illegally, people can still buy it from a developer.

 

Quote

That makes you a pirate. No, you should not be proud of piracy. No, piracy is not good. No, it really is stealing. If you're too poor to afford a game, then why do you own that console? YOu should be putting that money into something that is more needed. Save for college etc.

Yes it makes you a pirate. Yes you can be morally outraged at people who pirate things, I have no problem with that.

 

No it is not stealing: the difference is important here for the reasons I have been mentioning: A counterfeit is a detriment to the producers of the original product who hold the rights to exclusively sell their products.

 

The difference here is that a counterfeit copy doesn't invalidates the original copy in any way that's directly measurable. It has an impact on the original product sure, because you're messing with the supply of it and that directly affects demand.

 

But those forces don't exist in a vacuum: A lot more things can affect the demand for your games over than excessive supply and counterfeiting like say, the quality and perceived value of your product vs what you're asking for.

 

For more on this, please refer to GOG that somehow manages to survive and grow as a store while being 100% DRM free.

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So should I call you a murderer if you ever hit somebody, even if accidentally?

 

Because hey it's fucking attempted murder no matter how you put it.

 

I have never seen someone so dumb when it comes to comparisons. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Jrock said:

That's not even close to what we're arguing here.

It is, if you're truly interested you can read my previous post above for details on my position overall.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, that's not the same thing.  Nintendo works with lawmakers to hold up these laws.  1) You agreed to a contract.  2)  It's considered digital theft no matter how you spin it.  Again, your ignorance of the law does not hold up in court.  Just like if I were to hack your steam account and didn't give it back that also wouldn't be theft by your logic.  No, it is digital theft too.  I get that you don't see it this way, but in a court of law, your argument would be thrown out the window.

You're asserting my ignorance of the law based on what exactly? The opinion of Nintendo and their EULA? Can you show me some legislation that actually calls something "Digital Theft" please? Previous case law that accepts this term and equivalency to theft in a piracy case would be nice as well please.

[AvocadosGuac]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You seem to disagree with yourself:

No i don't. If a developer still has the game on sale, and you don't buy it from them, or buy a resale of a legitimate copy of the game(even here its a grey area), it is piracy.

 

If i make a game, and 10 million people buy it, and 2 million have it, but didnt buy it (12 million copys in the world, only 10 million sold) that means that, 2 million were illegally obtained through piracy.now if i sold this game for $1. i would have 10 Million, but if all 12 million bought the game i would have 12 Million. What's so difficult to understand?

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Your position is ignorance of the law and silly justifications of a crime.  Criminals don't usually see the wrong in their actions, and do whatever they can to justify it.  It is digital theft, and you would be charged with such in a court of law.  Ignorance of the law to justify a crime does not hold up in court rather you like it or not.

Except I already agreed it is a crime and that you can call people who pirate games criminals. I even agreed while responding to you specifically and it was the very first paragraph of my response:

 

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

By definition, you cannot steal a license. You can break a license or use a service without a License and those are legit crimes: I have no gripe about you or Nintendo calling people "criminals" because it is on the law books.

You're not only not arguing in good faith here, you're not even fully reading my replies, not even the parts where I actually agree with you.

 

My beef is very specific: calling it "Theft" is just an attempt to vilify people who commit a different crime. This is still a crime and I was not making a moral value judgement on the severity of said crime only to say that the reason we don't call all these things "Theft" and we have different crimes like Unauthorized use of a license, counterfeiting, piracy, etc. It's because we as a society recognize that these crimes have different degrees on impact on the victims of said crimes and we also agreed this have different consequences as well.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Jrock said:

No i don't. If a developer still has the game on sale, and you don't buy it from them, or buy a resale of a legitimate copy of the game(even here its a grey area), it is piracy.

 

If i make a game, and 10 million people buy it, and 2 million have it, but didnt buy it (12 million copys in the world, only 10 million sold) that means that, 2 million were illegally obtained through piracy.now if i sold this game for $1. i would have 10 Million, but if all 12 million bought the game i would have 12 Million. What's so difficult to understand?

Woah there. Go easy on the math. This concept is hard for some to understand. 

 

But thats only an overview. Digital games are itemless, but why people cant grasp the fact that it COST money to make the game and you just steal it for free to enjoy. Its theft. Plain and simple

[AvocadosGuac]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

But that only an over view. Digital games are itemless, but why people cant grasp the fact that it COST money to make the game.

Exactly. AI don't create all of our video games just yet LOL. There's still real people that have to manually code the entire game.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Woah there. Go easy on the math. This concept is hard for some to understand. 

 

But that only an over view. Digital games are itemless, but why people cant grasp the fact that it COST money to make the game.

 

28 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

This requires not only "how many downloads vs how many sales" because A download doesn't necessarily equals a sale. People have the option to download but that doesn't translate in having the means to actually buy a copy of the game if said option to download wasn't available. That's not even getting into competing products i.e. If I don't have the option to pirate games and I have to buy them 100% of the time would I care to buy 100% of the games I pirated?

By means, I mean the money: I have the ability of pirating 1000 games. I do not have 60,000 dollars of disposable income to buy all those games.

 

Being able to download a pirated version of the game doesn't means I also would have 60,000 dollars to buy all of them.

 

Is that truly hard to understand?

[DrMacintosh]

12 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Blocking the system from OS upgrades? 

 

That's a bit extreme 

Letting people hack your OS to pirate your software sounds a little extreme. 

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, HarryNyquist said:

Just because Sony and MS do it doesn't make it more correct to do it.

How so? Why the fuck would you have an online service for a console and NOT ban people for connecting with cfw? Seriously, it's a TOS violation, they have every right to, and if you don't you end up with a ton of people hacking in games since the console being difficult to modify is the only protection. See the PSP.

In addition to game hacking, it's a piracy problem. They aren't bricking your console. I like the approach of just banning the console and not the account myself, and in fact the ONLY problem I have with sonys way is they are killing what you bought, which they do anyway if they happen to double charge you (they will never refund) and you do a charge-back, because they are just generally scummy

If you want to mod you console and run whatever bootleg games/mods you want. prepare to buy a dedicated console for this. These are facts of life.

 

This is asinine. I've never even seen people on forums dedicated to console modding, even ones that openly support piracy being the slightest bit mad that MS and sony dont allow this- they just focus on finding ways around it if they want to play online with their cfw for some reason (most just get a second console). They basically need to do this, and any person with a base understanding of how console and their online services work understands this.

[AvocadosGuac]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I have the ability of pirating 1000 games. I do not have 60,000 dollars of disposable income to buy all those games.

I have the ability to burn down 1000 houses. I do not have 100 million dollars to replace all of these houses.

 

This makes this alright? I understand burning down houses is very far fetched, but i hope you're trying to understand pirating a license is still stealing.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The licenses is what is considered the product, but you can argue that the game is a work of art so there's that.  Under law, it is digital theft, and many have been charged with it.  When you don't pay for it you yourself are giving them no money which puts them at a loss.

Ok.

 

I have no major disagreements with that statement.

 

It puts them at a loss.

 

You did not assert a specific amount. Companies like Nintendo (complete disclosure I am not actually sure if them specifically) Assert not that they have "A loss" but they very specifically equate each pirated copy with a lost sell.

 

So I ask again: I have enough hard drive space and internet speed to download 1000 games over the course of maybe 3 months. Do you think I have the ability to earn 20,000 dollars every month to be able to afford that?

 

In case you think this is an unfair assertion, these are actual numbers that were asked for in case in case you feel like giggling a bit (old buy still relevant):

 

[Shreyas1]

to be fair, you are expected to follow the EULA

[Syntaxvgm]

28 minutes ago, Jrock said:

I have the ability to burn down 1000 houses. I do not have 100 million dollars to replace all of these houses.

 

This makes this alright? I understand burning down houses is very far fetched, but i hope you're trying to understand pirating a license is still stealing.

As much as I'm against everyone in this thread saying what Nintendo is doing is somehow abnormal or wrong, that comparison does not work. By burning down the house you are referencing a bad song and destroying someone's property, by pirating you are using something without a license. You may or may not have bought it if you couldn't pirate, very likely for a lot of people they would not bother with most of what they would pirate. it's not morally right, but t's not burning down houses lol. Houses are not able to be duplicated infinitely

[AvocadosGuac]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

As much as I'm agains't everyone in this thread saying what Nintendo is doing is somehow abnormal or wrong, that comparison does not work. By burning down the house you are referencing a bad song and destroying someone's property, by pirating you are using something without a license. You may be have bought it if you couldn't pirate, very likely for a lot of people they would not bother, with most of what they would pirate. it's not morally right, but t's not burning down houses lol. Houses are not able to be duplicated infinitely

I completely understand. I even said that in my own post. Its very far fetched and doesn't work, but neither do any of his statements.

 

Regardless, i'm done arguing with someone so arrogant and unintelligent. I can't begin to understand how people cannot get it through their thick skulls, that downloading a game without paying for it is piracy. 

 

Piracy is in all forms of media, books, movies, music, video games, even porn gets pirated ffs.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Jrock said:

I have the ability to burn down 1000 houses. I do not have 100 million dollars to replace all of these houses.

Did I burn 1000 games so that nobody is able to buy them anymore just like I burned 1000 houses so nobody can live there anymore?

 

Not really did I?

 

This is why I didn't use an analogy, I used a direct example. Your analogy equates burning a house that nobody can use afterwards with downloading or copying a game people still have the option of buying in the store afterwards.

 

This is always the case with discussions about piracy: morally asserting it's a damnable crime beyond what's reasonable. Asserting that anybody that like me, Actually agrees it is a crime and should be prosecuted but knows that asserting inaccurate analogies is basically poisoning the well in seeking a punitive, unfair sentence, get portrayed as "You just want to defend thieves!"

[Sniperfox47]

14 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The license is what is considered the product, but you can argue that the game is a work of art so there's that.  Under law, it is digital theft, and many have been charged with it.  When you don't pay for it you yourself are giving them no money which puts them at a loss.

And do you know what making an unauthorized copy of a piece of art is called? Not theft. Copyright violation. They are completely different laws.

[Thaldor]

27 minutes ago, Itereus said:

This might be problematic, not because a hacked device shouldn't be banned, but because banning a user associated with a hacked device opens up a can of worms.

Scenario:

A friend logs onto my Switch. We play some games. Then a month later I hack the Switch and go online. Nintendo detects this, and bans all accounts on that Switch. My friend who has no connection to the hack receives a ban.

 

BUT! Thus far we only have this one(?) article and incident. As far as I know, there has been no public stance from Nintendo on this. Honestly, they should just state their policy regarding this. IMO it's OK to ban a hacked device from accessing the online service of Nintendo. There really is no excuse, you can do as you will with your device, but the consequence is that you're banned from accessing a seperate service not included with the Switch. This is especially true when they launch the paid online service.

It doesn't open only a can of worms, it might even be a whole barrel of worms.

 

Let's take me as an example. I have Switch, Wii, two original DSs, 3DS, 3DS XL and New 3DS XL, in all of the devices I use the same account and one of the DSs and the 3DS have been my sisters who also now has Switch. I use modcartridge in my original DS just because no one probably even care about that platform anymore and just want to use emulators and other stuff on it. I accidentaly put that MicroSD card to my switch without formating it and Nintendo takes a bean to its nose and bans my account. Without offical statement it might mean all of my devices are now banned and probably my sisters Switch is also banned. Also if someone bought banned device can their account also be banned just because that device was originally owned by a "hacker"?

 

But probably they don't go that far and we will see that once Nintendo makes some kind of official statement.

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Tell that to a 3D printer.

it's still a material cost, and a cost to the people that have created the house. It would have to be your own house to burn it down.

The argument with piracy in court is that every single download of a pirated thing is 1:1 lost money for the people that made it (then usually a gazillion dollars damage), and I just fundamentally disagree with that. And it's not property destruction. But it's not 0 value either.

[Syntaxvgm]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Did I burn 1000 games so that nobody is able to buy them anymore just like I burned 1000 houses so nobody can live there anymore?

 

Not really did I?

 

This is why I didn't use an analogy, I used a direct example. Your analogy equates burning a house that nobody can use afterwards with downloading or copying a game people still have the option of buying in the store afterwards.

 

This is always the case with discussions about piracy: morally asserting it's a damnable crime beyond what's reasonable. Asserting that anybody that like me, Actually agrees it is a crime and should be prosecuted but knows that asserting inaccurate analogies is basically poisoning the well in seeking a punitive, unfair sentence, get portrayed as "You just want to defend thieves!"

You wouldn't download SAND!