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

[AvocadosGuac]

8 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!"

Mods, im sorry. Im breaking Community Standards. Ban me, apply warning points. I dont fucking care

 

http://bfy.tw/IIvF

[mynameisjuan]

18 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 

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?

 

Dont have the money to buy the game? too bad so sad. I dont have the money to buy a lambo so it ok for me to steal it? 

 

Your logic seriously blows my mind how much you are trying to justify pirating and how its not theft. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

like i said in the last couple of years:

there isn't any piracy on xbox one or PS4

PS3 was not the friendliest console for pirates.

All Nintendo consoles have been hacked and are a heaven for pirates. The Switch isn't there but of the 3 consoles is the not that is closer as usual.

None of that translates into a ranking of which company has been hurt the most (if at all) by piracy.

 

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

There's no need for independent studies just some knowledge of piracy.

Yeah, fuck science! We know. We just know.

 

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

In this scenario, government agencies label it as digital theft and online IP theft.

Just because they call something something doesn't make it that thing.

 

Every single court case for "pirated" movies, music, and games in the US and Canada have been on the basis of copyright violation and the breaking of a lisence agreement.

 

Theft is very specifically a property law concept. As a copyright lisence agreement doesn't fall under property law and instead falls under copyright law it is very specifically *not* theft. It is very specifically copyright violation.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here @Misanthrope but I'm pretty sure this is the whole point Misanthrope is trying to make. That calling it something that it's not muddies the waters and confuses people. It's not theft. Stop calling it theft. It's a crime but it's not a property law crime, it's a copyright crime.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because the numbers are never the same.  It depends on what the maker or publisher suggests to the retailer that it is valued at.  The thing is, numbers don't matter because it is still digital theft no matter how it gets spun, and it is enforced, by law, by several governments. 

 

Well yes, that has always been my point, from the moment I started posting on this thread. Look:

 

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Curious: How did you quantify that "the most" argument?

 

Such phrasing implies actual numbers to compare. And when we're talking "lost" sales to piracy gaming companies make wrong core assumptions from the get go so again: where are these numbers coming from?

 

Is there an accepted study on piracy that irrefutable shows causation (hint: not correlation) between piracy and weaker sales?

 

My assertion is that the numbers indeed are never the same. This are things that are usually left to a court to decide damages on. I am not going to assert whenever I think the courts are unfair or not in asserting said numbers (I did posted a previous joke about it but let's forget about it).

 

So I agree completely that the numbers are never the same.

 

Yet on this very discussion, we have people that are still making the point of 1 download = 1 lost sale, unequivocally. Even companies have made that argument in court as a matter of fact.

 

But we agree that the numbers are never the same. As I said, there's other factors: I doubt Aliens: Colonial Marines would have surpassed GTA 5 on sales if it was able to exist in a world with 0 piracy at all, we can all agree this games are very different and have very different demands can we not? Yet they were released the very same year.

 

That's all I'm saying here: Companies *do* make facetious claims like "Our games are hurting because of piracy" or 'We have been hit the most with piracy" when they're trying to justify this to their investors and boards of directors. Yet it is very aparent that this cannot possibly always be the case.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

You wouldn't download SAND!

I am so glad that I had just finished my sip of coffee when I saw that

[Sniperfox47]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Um, several government agencies charge people on it.  They list it on their sites as a crime.  So, are you saying they're wrong when they charge people with it?

As @Misanthrope asked before, please point me to one single piece of legislation or case law where it was called that or where that was the specific charge against the defendant.

[Syntaxvgm]

10 minutes ago, Jrock said:

Mods, im sorry. Im breaking Community Standards. Ban me, apply warning points. I dont fucking care

 

http://bfy.tw/IIvF

Piracy: the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.

8 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

Dont have the money to buy the game? too bad so sad. I dont have the money to buy a lambo so it ok for me to steal it? 

 

Your logic seriously blows my mind how much you are trying to justify pirating and how its not theft. 

Can I look at and duplicate a lambo just by knowing some information? Maybe someone who owns a lambo told me how to make my own and I can just copy it into existence?

No.

But I'm not saying it's right either, I'm just saying your logic blows my mind as well.

Your logic is literally
"You wouldn't download a car"

 

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's on the website of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, a government website.  "Digital and Online IP Theft"  Which I said numerous times, but for some reason, you chose to ignore.

That is a government agency as I was finding out.

 

Basically, the functions of aiding and assisting law enforcement agencies in seeking out and prosecuting violators of content.

 

So full disclosure: I actually do find it troubling that a government agency equates piracy to theft, that's in an on itself asserting qualities that they might not have.

 

So with that out of the way: The police can search for a "digital thief" and seek to bring charges against him and even call it out as such: "We are searching for digital thieves with the aid of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center"

 

That however, is not the same as being charged with a crime called 'Online IP theft' because that actually requires more than just a government agency calling it something: It requires a previous legislation which requires congress approval and is subject to previous rulings a.k.a. case law, meaning that it is now involving many agencies and government bodies and is actually written as law.

 

There's kind of additional checks and balances implied in it, that's all I'm saying.

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's on the website of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, a government website.  "Digital and Online IP Theft"  Which I said numerous times, but for some reason, you chose to ignore.

A) Being what they call it on a government website does not make it law.

 

B) let me post a quote from that website:

Quote

specifically targets websites and their operators that distribute counterfeit and pirated items over the Internet, including counterfeit pharmaceuticals and pirated movies

Which specifically also calls it counterfeitting. Since counterfeitting is also decidedly *not* theft it cannot be both ways, despite that site calling it both.

 

C) not that it's super relevant but the IPRCC is heavily funded by the MPAA and several other stakeholders, and their wording reflects the wording the MPAA has used in the past.

[asus killer]

17 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

None of that translates into a ranking of which company has been hurt the most (if at all) by piracy.

 

what? 

 

who mentioned any rankings. I just said is the most hurt by piracy because their consoles are the ones being hacked. So who is hurt the most? the ones without piracy? 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

what? 

 

who mentioned any rankings. I just said is the most hurt by piracy because their consoles are the ones being hacked. So who is hurt the most? the ones without piracy? 

 

I did. In fairness that was a while ago, on the second page, but I wanted to introduce that discussion:

 

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Curious: How did you quantify that "the most" argument?

 

Such phrasing implies actual numbers to compare. And when we're talking "lost" sales to piracy gaming companies make wrong core assumptions from the get go so again: where are these numbers coming from?

 

Is there an accepted study on piracy that irrefutable shows causation (hint: not correlation) between piracy and weaker sales?

 

[AvocadosGuac]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Since counterfeitting is also decidedly *not* theft

Time to go counterfeit some money, since it's not illegal.

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

what? 

 

who mentioned any rankings. I just said is the most hurt by piracy because their consoles are the ones being hacked. So who is hurt the most? the ones without piracy? 

Windows? Not that I have statistics to back it up, but I'm pretty sure more Windows users pirate games than 3DS users.

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, Jrock said:

Time to go counterfeit some money, since it's not illegal.

I never said it's not illegal. I just said it's not theft. It's counterfeitting.

[AvocadosGuac]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

I never said it's not illegal. I just said it's not theft. It's counterfeitting.

Whoops yup i didn't read before posting LOL.

[asus killer]

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Windows? Not that I have statistics to back it up, but I'm pretty sure more Windows users pirate games than 3DS users.

fair! but i was talking about consoles. PC is just... well we all know 

 

But still when Denuvo first appeared there was more than year without AAA games being cracked. People were playing pirated games on the WiiU like crazy in that time.

 

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 

I did. In fairness that was a while ago, on the second page, but I wanted to introduce that discussion:

 

 

 

let's not be a Clinton on this defining the meaning of sex. Deciding if we are discussing lost sales, lost revenue, more copies pirated, etc...

Nintendo has had all their consoles hacked unlike MS or Sony, that was what i was saying, and you could clearly see that by what i wrote.

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

1)  Copyright infringement is digital and online IP theft.

2) Piracy is listed under it.

3) I guess you didn't read their operations?  The counterfeiting was was most likely in context to part makers.  Or, was it directly talking about piracy?

With regards to your first two points I'll reiterate. Just because they call it something does not make it that thing. Again, that is neither legislation nor case law as has been mentioned to you multiple times now by myself and others.

 

The quote is only one of many throughout their website where they flip-flop between using Copyright terms and Property law terms and use them interchangeably. This is done because it works to condition a more visceral response in people by conditioning them to treat it as the same as physical theft. This is nothing new.

 

See the old "you wouldn't steal a car" commercial linked above as an example. Copyright stakes holders like to play both sides of the field so they can get some of the protections of both Copyright law and Property law, despite not both being applicable. And as major contributors they have a significant impact on how the NIPRCC presents things.

[Blademaster91]

23 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

Dont have the money to buy the game? too bad so sad. I dont have the money to buy a lambo so it ok for me to steal it? 

 

Your logic seriously blows my mind how much you are trying to justify pirating and how its not theft. 

The only ''hacking'' i've been seeing on the Switch is porting stuff like Gameboy titles that Nintendo can't give two sh*ts enough about to make available on Switch or old console ports that aren't hurting the game publisher. And,well there is quite a difference in ''stealing'' even a newer $60 game and physically stealing a $250k Lamborghini.

[asus killer]

i really don't get this discussion, Microsoft did this with the xbox 360, if they detected a modified console you would be immediately banned. Sony did the exact same thing with PS3.

How is this something that shocks anyone almost a decade after just because Nintendo started to do it?

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, asus killer said:

let's not be a Clinton on this defining the meaning of sex. Deciding if we are discussing lost sales, lost revenue, more copies pirated, etc...

Nintendo has had all their consoles hacked unlike MS or Sony, that was what i was saying, and you could clearly see that by what i wrote.

Ok no disagreements let's talk about that: Do you think this is true because Nintendo is just really incompetent at DRM and securing their products?

 

Well maybe not: The original xbox and the PS2 were bypassed. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony did not plan on this.

 

The xbox360 and the PS3 were also bypassed. I am also sure Microsoft and Sony did not plan on this either.

 

So they learned their lesson by Xbone and PS4? Well not really those are just PCs and we know that those are not really that much more difficult to bypass.

 

So why do you think there haven't been bypassed yet in any significant way while people are still trying really hard to bypass NIntendo consoles?

 

Whats the fundamental difference between Nintendo Switch games today and XBone and PS4 games?

[asus killer]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok no disagreements let's talk about that: Do you think this is true because Nintendo is just really incompetent at DRM and securing their products?

 

Well maybe not: The original xbox and the PS2 were bypassed. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony did not plan on this.

 

The xbox360 and the PS3 were also bypassed. I am also sure Microsoft and Sony did not plan on this either.

 

So they learned their lesson by Xbone and PS4? Well not really those are just PCs and we know that those are not really that much more difficult to bypass.

 

So why do you think there haven't been bypassed yet in any significant way while people are still trying really hard to bypass NIntendo consoles?

 

Whats the fundamental difference between Nintendo Switch games today and XBone and PS4 games?

both Sony and Microsoft (but especially Sony) spend insane amounts of money on securing their consoles from hackers. PS3 was very difficult to hack, PS4 impossible. Microsoft only made it on the xbox one, the 360 had a lot of exploits almost from one year existence and some very serious and impossible to patch (jtag and rgh)

Even if someone finds a exploit on their consoles they can release an update almost immediately and there wasn't been major exploits like the xbox 360 jtag/rgh that can't be secured.

Denuvo (the guys making life difficult for PC hackers) were formed by ex Sony employees.

 

Nintendo never invested on it. And the lesson wasn't learned either, all indications point to the switch being totally open to piracy shortly.

[Sniperfox47]

8 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i really don't get this discussion, Microsoft did this with the xbox 360, if they detected a modified console you would be immediately banned. Sony did the exact same thing with PS3.

How is this something that shocks anyone almost a decade after just because Nintendo started to do it?

I'm not shocked that Nintendo is doing this. I do think it's what the Homebrew community call a "dick move".

 

I also don't think it was okay that Microsoft or Sony did it. I also think that was a dick move. The fact that they got away with it doesn't make me think Nintendo should also get away with it.

 

And do I think Nintendo are doing anything illegal? No I don't. But that doesn't change my opinion that the end user should have the freedom to use the software of their choice with the hardware that they buy, and that companies shouldn't be able to penalize users for exterting that freedom.

 

Piracy is a problem. Piracy is a crime. I'll continue to point out it's not *theft* but it is still a crime.

 

Custom firmware are *not* piracy. Custom firmware are in many cases not even needed for piracy.

 

Homebrew software is also *not* piracy. And are not needed for piracy.

 

This move does not stop piracy, it only serves to stop Homebrew software and users taking advantage of the freedom to install third party software on their consoles.

[asus killer]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I'm not shocked that Nintendo is doing this. I do think it's what the Homebrew community call a "dick move".

 

I also don't think it was okay that Microsoft or Sony did it. I also think that was a dick move. The fact that they got away with it doesn't make me think Nintendo should also get away with it.

 

And do I think Nintendo are doing anything illegal? No I don't. But that doesn't change my opinion that the end user should have the freedom to use the software of their choice with the hardware that they buy, and that companies shouldn't be able to penalize users for exterting that freedom.

 

Piracy is a problem. Piracy is a crime. I'll continue to point out it's not *theft* but it is still a crime.

 

Custom firmware are *not* piracy. Custom firmware are in many cases not even needed for piracy.

 

Homebrew software is also *not* piracy. And are not needed for piracy.

 

This move does not stop piracy, it only serves to stop Homebrew software and users taking advantage of the freedom to install third party software on their consoles.

i'm not going to discuss piracy with you, wan't do it go ahead, but Nintendo as every right to defend themselves. Come on!

Custom firmware is made using Nintendo own firmware as a base so is really debatable that there is anything legal about it

 

But i get your point, playing old sega emulator on it does not hurt Nintendo, but that's not the point, if there is a custom firmware the console is open and can be used for piracy, they can't know if you use it for a sega emulator when you're online and for playing Botw when you're offline, so it's fair they use this defense, at least to me.

 

But there come out a lot of old consoles from sega, nintendo and atari. Is it really that important to play emulators or run linux on the switch? or just buy a cheap old nintendo console and do it on it, there they don't care.

[Misanthrope]

17 minutes ago, asus killer said:

both Sony and Microsoft (but especially Sony) spend insane amounts of money on securing their consoles from hackers. PS3 was very difficult to hack, PS4 impossible. Microsoft only made it on the xbox one, the 360 had a lot of exploits some very serious and impossible to patch (jtag and rgh)

Even if someone finds a exploit on their consoles they can release an update almost immediately and there wasn't been major exploits like the xbox 360 jtag/rgh that can't be secured.

Denuvo (the guys making life difficult for PC hackers) were formed by ex Sony employees.

 

Nintendo never invested on it. And the lesson wasn't learned either, all indications point to the switch being totally open to piracy shortly.

Ok there's a few thoughts to unpack here but I'll try to be concise.

 

1) Asserting how difficult something is to crack is not that useful. Because once it is cracked it's basically open for everybody with the exception of subsequent patching and console banning (bear with me I am getting to a point) which brings me to the next point:

 

2) You're correct in saying that the vulnerabilities have been quickly patched on some cases. Those are secured basically through automatic updates however there's nothing stopping me from getting a console that was bypassed before said updates and just keeping it offline

 

3) You're correct in saying Nintendo has probably not invested as much as Sony and Microsoft, however before we where about mid-way through the previous generation (360 and PS3) these were both bypassed and routinely so. Why should have Nintendo spend a bunch of money to succeed where Microsoft and Sony were still failing after spending so much?

 

Silver lining to this point: Denuvo has been defeated. It has served a valuable purpose don't get me wrong but it was still bypassed.

 

My assertion here is that something clearly changed midway through the previous generation of consoles, for those consoles specifically, and you alluded to it: Microsoft and Sony started pushing updates onlines and banning people's consoles if they were detected, about 11 to 12 years ago.

 

This is coincidentally, when we started to have a major shift in gaming towards online play. This was when games like CoD: Modern Warfare were becoming hugely popular and the draw was online play. People wanted to stay online and play online, possibly over risking not playing these extremely popular new games online with their friends so they prioritized these games to consuming exploits.

 

Before that? The most popular games were still at their core, single player games. Which is the key here: I don't think this war on patching and exploiting the consoles really did much to stop piracy altogether. It helped control it, give better release windows and such but there was a huge demand of people wanting to pirate those single player games.

 

This all changed with online gaming because that's far easier to constantly control.

 

THIS is why Nintendo has had historical troubles with piracy and what it continues to be the case: Their main draw it's still a very big chunk of single player experiences. This is no longer the main draw of the Xbone or the PS4. That is what happening to Nintendo: they were late to the online party and that's why they have seemingly been the target of being more prone to "hacking" They're not it's just that the other companies have managed to stave off that by virtue of offering mostly online experiences to the point that people embraced them, pay online subscriptions to access the service, even share their content streaming and posting to youtube right from their consoles.

 

You need a clean console to do all that, that's the incentive. It's not that pirates gave up on them is that there's just not as much interest.

 

EDIT: I did started this post by saying I was trying to be concise. I feel I must edit this to state how I utterly fucking failed at that.