Nintendo secures $2M settlement against Switch modder
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
He's running a business modding people's devices, Nintendo catches on and sends him a cease and desist, and so he stops. Congrats, you have narrowly avoided certain financial ruin, and made a bit of cash in the process!
All forms of business and economic-self-preservation logic would tell this guy to continue ceasing and desisting, but he opens the shop back up shortly after and Nintendo, as they are known to do, sues his ass off.
What exactly did he think was going to happen here?
They mention another guy in the article who has to pay nintendo 25-30% of his salary for the rest of his life too. Bananas.
It's a mad world that Switch 2 is the best selling console of all time.
It's legal to sell kits along with instructions for modifying a firearm from semi-automatic to automatic fire, and the results of that have been several mass shootings.
So modding your console or selling tools to do it ought to be legal as well. The damage from that is far, FAR smaller than even a single mass shooting.
A tiny plastic 3d printed “glock switch” is itself actually classified as a machine gun under the law.
This isn't to handwave away the horror of mass shootings, but most mass shootings are gang related, and largely by those already breaking a number of laws including owning a firearm illegally for those with felony history.
If you scaled this up to a large percentage of Switch consoles, no one would want to make Switch games anymore.
Nintendo is an evil, shitty company that weaponizes the courts, but I love good games/movies/etc. and want creators to be able to profit from them.
> Daly, who sold devices like the MIG Switch and MIG Dumper
So, he just sold the devices that allowed you to make copies of Switch cartridges. Similar to someone selling cassette tapes or CD-/DVD-Rs and CD/DVD burners. He didn't sell illegally copied games or anything that tampers with Nintendo's IP. But as we all know, in front of US courts it's not about who's right but who has more money. And Nintendo has plenty of that.
Many Western countries subscribe to some form of "contributory infringement" law, where someone can be fined tens of thousands per-work-infringed for simply developing or distributing a tool that can be used by someone else to infringe copyright. It's absurd.
See 28 in the original complaint: https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/07/02/modded_hardware_complaint....
Also 29c:
In order to achieve this, a MIG Switch circumvents Nintendo’s TPMs by tricking the Nintendo Switch console into treating unauthorized, pirated copies of Nintendo Switch games as authorized, official Nintendo Switch game cartridges.
The idiotic thing is he kept doing this even after a cease and desist.
Hilariously, the same cannot be said for digital protection measures.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/07/02/modded_hardware_complaint....
28c)
In order to achieve this, a MIG Switch circumvents Nintendo’s TPMs by tricking the Nintendo Switch console into treating unauthorized, pirated copies of Nintendo Switch games as authorized, official Nintendo Switch game cartridges.
I'm sure we could get into the weeds with technicalities and ifs and buts, but it isn't really about being technical or clever, it is about the spirit of the law and what the DMCA Section 1201 is about.
But having said that, DMCA 1201 (2) (a) and (b) is what you want.
Just because the Switch can't tell the difference between an original cartridge and a cloned one doesn't make it illegal per se. (What's the protection measure that was circumvented there?) It's just that the law is "broken" as it was made by those people making money from it.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
In my opinion (A) is violated because the non fungibility of the game cartridge is violated by copying the certificate to present an inauthentic cartridge as genuine.
(B) is pretty straightforward.
But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Nintendo lawyers are wrong, and this guy could've fought this specific charge over a technicality. Reminds me of how Sov Cits always get out of traffic infringements because they're "traveling".
disgusting the way they go after people