They can deny my warranty and ban my account and device-ID on their cloud services for breaking their EULA, fine, but they have no right to come into my life and politely (the mafia "stop what you're doing or else" kind of politely) tell me what I can't do with the device I legally own, in my spare time.
If I want to root my smart device which I legally own to run Doom on it, that should be completely legal. If the mods that allow me to run Doom on it could also be used by others to run pirated content is another matter that should not be my problem, but the device manufacturer's to patch and implement better security on their hardware and software and only go after those who are proven to be involved in piracy, not after the tool makers.
If a burglar uses a B0sch powertool to break into my house, should I go after B0sch for making tools that allow criminals to engage in illegal activities?
Should Google come after me for rooting my Andorid phone and sideloading apps not on their app store?
Jailbreaking falls under a legal gray area, which is debatably covered by the "right to repair" section of the DMCA.
Breaking a console's DRM explicitly to play non-approved software is violating the DMCA and against the law.
As I said, not really comparable.
As asutekku have stated:
If you’re distributing the software to allow pirated usage the lawyers might disagree with you.
It seems that the US is the leader in IP cases, but that is simply due to the fact that most companies that can act are based there. The reality is that Europe have different IP statures which favors the authors more than others.
TLDR: US IP law deals economic losses, European IP law focuses on moral losses. This means that even with DMCA, Nintendo (and every other author, whether as an individual or company (in the non-corporate sense) or corporate) have rights in Europe that are stronger than in the US.
This is why the "right to repair" is important to fight for -- by default, Americans don't have such protections.
Edit: America to USA. However, Americans (as in people from the US) should note that there are similar provisions throughout Americas (especially Mexico and Brazil).
The DMCA will still have effect for example, if the modder is in Germany and hosts their cracks on Github. A DMCA takedown can be sent to Github to take down the crack. The modder should be untouchable by American authorities (directly).
If the crack is hosted in a (for example) Swedish server, then the DMCA is no valid (only at the server owner discretion).
DMCA doesn't forbid you to crack the console, but to release the tools to circumvent a security measure. You can brag all what you want on internet about a crack you've made, but the moment you publish even a clue on how to crack something, a DMCA can be sent to either put down the info from a website or to make you to desist (only if either you and/or the server are located, or have business, in the United States).
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpzhxXkXEAIuDYz?format=png&name=...
Edit: modder is a 26 years old male living in Belgium (https://twitter.com/forestillusion/status/134123063191354163...)
Might apply, might not apply here. IANAL and I have not read the article :)
Then it's a government problem and Nintendo is playing vigilante, which isn't better.
Once they get caught they will nearly always lie through their teeth about their illegal business activities and claim they are innocent open-source hackers or whatever. It’s really deceptive and more offensive to me as someone who legitimately likes to tinker. For the most part I disagree with the DMCA anti-circumvention law but in nearly every case I’ve seen the people being targeted were doing much more than just selling mod chips.
Cite?
> These defendants lined their pockets by stealing and selling the intellectual property of other video-game developers–even going so far as to make customers pay a licensing fee to play stolen games,
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/two-members-notorious-v...
Interestingly, Nintendo's explicit message was not that the hacking was wrong, but that the sharing of the hacking was wrong, because sharing the hack encourages piracy on a larger scale. It's hard to argue with that logic, TBH. And I actually admire their soft touch approach.
My sense is that this is not that big of a deal, to Nintendo or anyone else. The platform, the physicality of "normal" distribution, plus the general inability of people to successfully mod their stuff, all favors Nintendo naturally.
Seems like a tempest in a teapot, and if anything, I don't think it harms Nintendo's reputation at all (modulo sensationalist headlines).
If you can't come up with an argument against that then you're not trying hard enough. The most obvious is that sharing a mod is free speech and ought to be protected as such.
It's also unclear how mods contribute to copyright infringement in any meaningful way. I'm having trouble finding details about exactly what Neimod's mods entailed, but most mods I have experience with require an existing copy of the game.
If freedom of speech gives individuals a license to say anything in any medium, then this means that artificial scarcity is inconsistent with free speech.
If artificial scarcity is immoral, then all information products are immoral.
(Note that as a practical matter I suspect that Nintendo only cares about "hacking" insofar as it undermines sales. I can't see why they would care about people modifying the games or equipment they own. I can totally see why they would care if someone invented an SD card cartridge for the 3DS that allows you to run every game ever written from it. Such a device, if mass produced and sold for profit, is clearly intended for piracy. Moreover, its easy to see how such a device is parasitic on the platform itself, so that if Nintendo didn't do something about it then there won't be a Nintendo.)
Nintendo has previously sued a company for selling a device which allows people to mod the device they owned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._N.... Nintendo is notoriously anti-consumer in this regard.
And anyways, restricting mods is unnecessary to encourage the economic viability of video games.
If the later is not allowed, this very comment might be illegal, as I'm telling you that such a thing is possible.
Interviewing family members, hiring someone to build a schedule of your coming and goings, and so on... Does not seem like a "soft touch" approach to me. To be frank, it's something I would expect of the Yakuza, not a game company.
iFixit is safe because it doesn't really affect Apple's sales. It may put a slightly downward pressure on Apple Store repair revenue. But iFixit solutions require technical aptitude, time and skill to apply that most people don't have, and wouldn't spend on fixing a laptop even if they had it!
But what if iFixit sold a dohicky that defeats the copy protection on all software written for macOS? Do you think that's okay, and that their right to share that device is free speech?
That's all that matters.
No, it isn't. But thank you for illustrating one consequence of "dogmatic belief".
The issue I have is that they target people who figure out how to run and copy cracked game from their device, and not those who are actively distributing them. While it makes perfect sense from their side, the images from the tweet feed do not present a compelling argument that the modders are breaking the law and as such they are intimidating law-abiding citizen which is horrifying.
The idea that someone modifying hardware and software they legally purchased for the sake of their curiosity - something once called tinkering, would lead to private investigators dig up details, follow the person around, and try and interview their family members etc for pressure points is disturbing.
We typically do this for natsec, a private company doing it for a video game that's of little to no consequence in the grand scheme is fundamentally disturbing.
Rupert Murdoch's Pirates is a fantastic book on the subject: https://www.amazon.fr/Murdochs-Pirates-hacking-Ruperts-skull...
Basically pay-for-TV companies went ballistic in the 90s' and 00s' against hackers, and people died in the process.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking:
> Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
> According to a 2002 report by the U.S. National Center for Victims of Crime, "virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking", although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.