Nintendo Is Already Punishing Switch 2 Users Over Piracy ‘Suspicions’
-
Most of their customers don’t even know the Mig flash exists.
I'm a filthy Switch pirate and I only knew of the name. I didn't know what it was exactly or how it worked until the recent reporting about it.
-
Because in the US and several other countries you can legally back up a cartridge that you have bought. In that case it wouldn't be piracy.
In that case it wouldn’t be piracy.
What about in this case?
-
Because in the US and several other countries you can legally back up a cartridge that you have bought. In that case it wouldn't be piracy.
You may have the right to make a backup, but playing that backup on a non sectioned device or via non sectioned means is still a breach of the TOS and breaking the license terms of the game and/or console. Oh and it is in violation of the DMCA as far as I know, because to make the backup it is needed to circumvent copy protection, which is forbidden by the rules of the DMCA (and equal laws in other jurisdictions like Europe).
You may own the cartridge, but you still only have a license (with very specific terms and rules) to use the software on it. -
This post did not contain any content.
You buy Nintendo, you get Nintendo.
-
You may have the right to make a backup, but playing that backup on a non sectioned device or via non sectioned means is still a breach of the TOS and breaking the license terms of the game and/or console. Oh and it is in violation of the DMCA as far as I know, because to make the backup it is needed to circumvent copy protection, which is forbidden by the rules of the DMCA (and equal laws in other jurisdictions like Europe).
You may own the cartridge, but you still only have a license (with very specific terms and rules) to use the software on it.wrote on last edited by [email protected]Using modified hardware might break other regulations or terms of services, but using a backup copy of a copy you own that hardware is not piracy in several jursidictions. Which is the answer to the question in the comment.
-
Even if that is legal (it isnt), but it will be circumvention of encryption at worst and recreation of protected algorithms, code and keys in a non-nintendo product at best ( and thats before talking about game cartridge content ).
Last i checked that is still illegal hehewrote on last edited by [email protected]Even if that is legal (it isn't)
-
Are you a lawyer?
-
I am not a lawyer, but I have talked to lawyers about this before and their answer was basically:
The owner of a copy of a game or other computer software may "make or authorize the making of another copy." Legally speaking, the law does not require the person who owns the copy to personally make the backup copy, nor does it specify that the backup copy be made only from the copy owned.
This is important because on Nintendo's own website they state the following:
Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not [...] it is illegal to download [...] a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
What Nintendo is saying here is outright wrong. A person who only has only temporary possession of a game (such as rental or borrowing) gains no rights under 17 USC 117, and may not download a copy without separate permission, which obviously Nintendo would never grant However, A person with permanent possession of a game (such as a legally purchased game either from retail or used) DOES gain those rights to an archival copy. These rights supercede any restriction on those rights Nintendo would presume to apply. Nintendo presumes to add extra conditions and terms that do not actually exist in the law.
The purpose of the archival copy provision is to protect legal owner's access to the computer software in case of damage. If your copy of a game breaks, such as a broken CD, you have the legal right, as owner of that CD, to continue to use the computer software on that CD no matter its physical condition. An archival copy could then be used to create a working version of that CD so that you, the legal owner of that copy, may continue to access that computer software. This is also the case when access to that software becomes difficult or impossible, such as a game or other computer software that is stored on archaic storage media such as a floppy disk or paper tape.
-
-
If you try to go online with a flashcart, you're an idiot and I have no sympathy.
That's victim blaming. That should be illegal (to brick these devices)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Thanks Nintendo, now I'm looking up what the mig flash is lol
-
That's victim blaming. That should be illegal (to brick these devices)
It's not bricked. It's just banned from online services. Sony and Microsoft do this too, for the record.
-
Using modified hardware might break other regulations or terms of services, but using a backup copy of a copy you own that hardware is not piracy in several jursidictions. Which is the answer to the question in the comment.
Nearly all jurisdictions have DMCA like laws which clearly say that circumventing copy protection is against the law.
So in those jurisdictions it is piracy to use a backup of a copy protected game and I am very sure that a map of the countries where the Switch 2 can be officially bought and a map with countries who have thoses laws will produce a lot of matches.
Maybe I am wrong, but I highly doubt it. -
Even if that is legal (it isn't)
-
Are you a lawyer?
-
I am not a lawyer, but I have talked to lawyers about this before and their answer was basically:
The owner of a copy of a game or other computer software may "make or authorize the making of another copy." Legally speaking, the law does not require the person who owns the copy to personally make the backup copy, nor does it specify that the backup copy be made only from the copy owned.
This is important because on Nintendo's own website they state the following:
Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not [...] it is illegal to download [...] a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
What Nintendo is saying here is outright wrong. A person who only has only temporary possession of a game (such as rental or borrowing) gains no rights under 17 USC 117, and may not download a copy without separate permission, which obviously Nintendo would never grant However, A person with permanent possession of a game (such as a legally purchased game either from retail or used) DOES gain those rights to an archival copy. These rights supercede any restriction on those rights Nintendo would presume to apply. Nintendo presumes to add extra conditions and terms that do not actually exist in the law.
The purpose of the archival copy provision is to protect legal owner's access to the computer software in case of damage. If your copy of a game breaks, such as a broken CD, you have the legal right, as owner of that CD, to continue to use the computer software on that CD no matter its physical condition. An archival copy could then be used to create a working version of that CD so that you, the legal owner of that copy, may continue to access that computer software. This is also the case when access to that software becomes difficult or impossible, such as a game or other computer software that is stored on archaic storage media such as a floppy disk or paper tape.
This is correct, as long as the copy was produced lawfully, which is only possible if no copy protection was circumvented.
Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states: No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
This law was created to limit the rights from 17 USC 117, and yes exceptions to section 103 exist, but those are very specific and some of them even exclude games specifically from the exceptions.
But I am no lawyer, and as a European I only have a very limited view and knowledge of US laws, so yes it is only my understanding of those laws and I could be wrong, so don't take my words as a legal advice or anything like that. I am only a normal human with some experience with laws and jurisdictions, but far away from a specialist.
-
-
Follow the link in the article to find out what really happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch2/comments/1lcqw4d/comment/my2iylo/
I also posted this in another threads a few days ago:
Nah, the OP of one reddit thread admitted he tried more than just his backups:
-
Dude is a prolific poster in Switch hacking communities and he used an account which he previously used with a hacked Switch 1
-
He admits trying the migswitch with the Switch 2 and it starting downloading something.
-
They got an online ban, so offline games and such still work.
You can agree or disagree whether piracy should be legal or whether backup copies are permitted (depends on jurisdiction), but this dude obviously played with fire and got burnt.
TL;DR: don’t be stupid and get banned for breaking ToS (whether you agree with it or not)
edit: more context: https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch2/comments/1lcqw4d/comment/my2kigh/
God this guy broke ToS while connected to the internet? Can't MigSwitchs run offline? I thought it was just a cart dump.
-
-
I'm a filthy Switch pirate and I only knew of the name. I didn't know what it was exactly or how it worked until the recent reporting about it.
Well if you're already a pirate you don't need the MIG or benefit in any way from using it. Presumably you've got an Erista Switch or a modchip. The MIG is only for pirating stuff on modchipless Lite/Mariko/OLED/Apparently 2 (but watch out) consoles. It can't pirate updates or DLC or eshop-only games so it's always worse than CFW or modchips for those that can use CFW or modchips.
-
Thanks Nintendo, now I'm looking up what the mig flash is lol
Gotta love the Streisand effect.
-
You buy Nintendo, you get Nintendo.
Just nintendon't
-
It's not bricked. It's just banned from online services. Sony and Microsoft do this too, for the record.
And that should be illegal, since there's no other online services provider for those devices.
You can't even setup one yourself.
God I hope EU will slap them like they slapped Apple forcing it to provide alternative app stores.
-
Even if that is legal (it isn't)
-
Are you a lawyer?
-
I am not a lawyer, but I have talked to lawyers about this before and their answer was basically:
The owner of a copy of a game or other computer software may "make or authorize the making of another copy." Legally speaking, the law does not require the person who owns the copy to personally make the backup copy, nor does it specify that the backup copy be made only from the copy owned.
This is important because on Nintendo's own website they state the following:
Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not [...] it is illegal to download [...] a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
What Nintendo is saying here is outright wrong. A person who only has only temporary possession of a game (such as rental or borrowing) gains no rights under 17 USC 117, and may not download a copy without separate permission, which obviously Nintendo would never grant However, A person with permanent possession of a game (such as a legally purchased game either from retail or used) DOES gain those rights to an archival copy. These rights supercede any restriction on those rights Nintendo would presume to apply. Nintendo presumes to add extra conditions and terms that do not actually exist in the law.
The purpose of the archival copy provision is to protect legal owner's access to the computer software in case of damage. If your copy of a game breaks, such as a broken CD, you have the legal right, as owner of that CD, to continue to use the computer software on that CD no matter its physical condition. An archival copy could then be used to create a working version of that CD so that you, the legal owner of that copy, may continue to access that computer software. This is also the case when access to that software becomes difficult or impossible, such as a game or other computer software that is stored on archaic storage media such as a floppy disk or paper tape.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]What is defined as copy here? Cartridge data (game data, not firmware etc) is encrypted and can only be accessed by a protocol that is like spi, but is proprietary, by a specific chip running nintendo code. Or is a copy a full backup of everything on the chip?
Is the copy a raw copy? Has the data been modified/decrypted/or any algorithm processed it?
These things define wether a copy falls under this or not. Check what the fineprint or laws defines what ' a copy' is exactly in this case.
If it doesnt, what i mentioned are important to see if what you said apply here or not.Like @[email protected] said, its only legal if nothing is done with the data. Any decryption using a nintendo key is infact, illegal, and falls under piracy.
This is why dolphin was removed from steam, because they do exactly that. Decrypt the data to use it.
If the process of dumping does any encryption or decryption, you also get in trouble in what they said.
These are the laws, and the lawyer you asked this too must not have been specialised in ip law, copyright and games, or doesnt know the technical details to decide on this.
The mig chip uses a proprietary protocol to send data of a partly, semi decrypted, game image. That will not go well in court, no matter if the rom was obtained legally.
-
-
Well if you're already a pirate you don't need the MIG or benefit in any way from using it. Presumably you've got an Erista Switch or a modchip. The MIG is only for pirating stuff on modchipless Lite/Mariko/OLED/Apparently 2 (but watch out) consoles. It can't pirate updates or DLC or eshop-only games so it's always worse than CFW or modchips for those that can use CFW or modchips.
Yup, I have a modded Erista. Will update the firmware for Metroid Prime 4 and then I probably won't be playing anything new after that on it.
-
If you see personal insults you should report the comment. Instances and communities have rules. Downvotes aren't insults though
Oh yeah, I do report every time now, but I still see way too many.
Am aware downvotes are not insults and I don't report downvotes, but also aware a lot of people use them as a plain disagree button.
-
It's a reference to this post. A lot of people found it funny but a lot of lemmings also thought it was insulting and spam
Thanks for the explanation!
I do not know the norms of shitpost communities, but as an outsider, I think it fits in perfectly.
