6 ms·

How is this considered legal? I get the cat and mouse chase between devs and the reverse engineering communities, but this seems to cross the line into physical

How is this considered legal? I get the cat and mouse chase between devs and the reverse engineering communities, but this seems to cross the line into physical destruction of property, at least at face value.

xwdv 5y ago
If we didn’t have profit protection measures like this everything would be much more expensive and that’s not a better alternative for most consumers.
- Sosh101 5y ago
  Well that's a whole other debate, but I'd like to know the legality now.
  - xwdv 5y ago
    You agreed to the terms of service. There is little to nothing you can do.
    - Sosh101 5y ago
      You can't write just want you want in an agreement. There are things that are not legally enforceable - even if the other party has agreed to them.
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        I wonder if a company included "We have the right to send a company agent to enter your home and destroy this product." in their Terms Of Service, and you "agree" to it, would that simply allow them to do so? EDIT: I am not a lawyer, but I've always been surprised that Terms Of Service and End User License Agreements aren't routinely voided by courts. Aren't they perfect examples of unconscionable and adhesive [1] contracts? These seem to tick all the boxes: One-sided, no meaningful choice, no meeting of the minds, significant differences in bargaining power between the parties, no ability to negotiate, take-it-or-leave-it terms. You'd think these things were total junk, but they're everywhere and somehow enforceable? Why? 1: https://www.jensenlawmn.com/adhesion-contracts-unconscionable https://www.jensenlawmn.com/adhesion-contracts-unconscionabl...
        Sosh101 5y ago
        And it's the same for more subtle matters too.
        xwdv 5y ago
        This would make a good movie or series, about a person whose job it is to go do things like this, and at times it could get dangerous when they encounter people who staunchly believe these EULAs are unenforceable.
        eru 5y ago
        Keep in mind that a license is different from a contract. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#License_versus_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lic... for an example of the difference.
        vel0city 5y ago
        > One-sided Its not really one-sided, if I agree to it then I can play Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware on Nintendo online services. Some people see that as a big benefit. > no meaningful choice I definitely have a choice on whether or not I buy/use a Nintendo Switch. My life won't end if I can't play Breath of the Wild or Smash Bros.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        Sure, but someone would still have to call them on it and go through years of litigation and related expenses.
  - selcuka 5y ago
    Everything is legal until it's not. Unless someone takes it to court they will get away with it. When that happens they will find a slightly more expensive and slightly more legal way to prevent piracy. Rinse and repeat.
- zucker42 5y ago
  This is doubtful in my opinion, but Nintendo would certainly like us to believe that. I think that Nintendo does this for profiteering purposes, and also because they are irrationally restrictive of unintended usage of their hardware/software/artwork.
  - mccorrinall 5y ago
    Do you remember the nintendo ds? Piracy was really awful on this one, especially in Japan. Almost no one bought original games until flash cards were finally banned.
- jobs_throwaway 5y ago
  any source for that claim?
- stolen_biscuit 5y ago
  How is this a profit protection measure? And how does it prevent the Switch from being more expensive?
  - selcuka 5y ago
    Nintendo makes a profit from game sales, therefore sells the console almost at cost. This hardware measure prevents piracy.
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  Not my downvote but I believe when you do the math the equation goes like this: (reduction in functionality) + (fewer options) + (loss of user control) + (handicapped operation) + (hardware underutilization) = higher prices for everyone This is not including things like (planned obsolescence) which are intended to make things more expensive without raising the sales price.
  - eru 5y ago
    You don't have to game on Nintendo devices. Open platforms are available on the market.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
...because you agreed to the terms when operating the software.
- Sosh101 5y ago
  right because all terms are legally enforceable...
- mejari 5y ago
  You can "agree" to any number of terms that they could put in there that aren't going to hold up to any legal scrutiny.
  - gruez 5y ago
    IANAL but contract terms are generally thought to be enforceable unless argued otherwise. Can you furnish the relevant statues/cases that you think make clauses like these unenforceable?
    - mejari 5y ago
      There are many rulings around the idea of "unfair" contracts. https://www.upcounsel.com/unfair-contract-terms-regulations https://www.upcounsel.com/unfair-contract-terms-regulations https://www.ttclub.com/news-and-resources/news/tt-talk/2016/tt-talk---unfair-contract-terms-generally-in-common-law/#:~:text=For%20the%20most%20part%2C%20unfair,allowed%20to%20stand%20as%20is https://www.ttclub.com/news-and-resources/news/tt-talk/2016/....
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Even that tenuous face value falls apart as soon as you consider that the person who clicks through the UI isn't necessarily the legal owner of the device.
  - gruez 5y ago
    That seems like a dispute between the user of the device and the owner. If an unauthorized user used dd to wipe someone's computer without the owner's consent, you don't go after the FSF, you go after the person who ran the command.
kube-system 5y ago
Simply the fact that the device is intended to be used afterwards is enough to disqualify it as criminal destruction.
adrr 5y ago
Just need California to pass referendum making it illegal for software to modify customer hardware without explicit consent from customer and allowing customer to opt out without penalizing customer with reduced functionality from original purchase.

xwdv 5y ago

If we didn’t have profit protection measures like this everything would be much more expensive and that’s not a better alternative for most consumers.

Sosh101 5y ago
Well that's a whole other debate, but I'd like to know the legality now.
- xwdv 5y ago
  You agreed to the terms of service. There is little to nothing you can do.
  - Sosh101 5y ago
    You can't write just want you want in an agreement. There are things that are not legally enforceable - even if the other party has agreed to them.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      I wonder if a company included "We have the right to send a company agent to enter your home and destroy this product." in their Terms Of Service, and you "agree" to it, would that simply allow them to do so? EDIT: I am not a lawyer, but I've always been surprised that Terms Of Service and End User License Agreements aren't routinely voided by courts. Aren't they perfect examples of unconscionable and adhesive [1] contracts? These seem to tick all the boxes: One-sided, no meaningful choice, no meeting of the minds, significant differences in bargaining power between the parties, no ability to negotiate, take-it-or-leave-it terms. You'd think these things were total junk, but they're everywhere and somehow enforceable? Why? 1: https://www.jensenlawmn.com/adhesion-contracts-unconscionable https://www.jensenlawmn.com/adhesion-contracts-unconscionabl...
      - Sosh101 5y ago
        And it's the same for more subtle matters too.
      - xwdv 5y ago
        This would make a good movie or series, about a person whose job it is to go do things like this, and at times it could get dangerous when they encounter people who staunchly believe these EULAs are unenforceable.
      - eru 5y ago
        Keep in mind that a license is different from a contract. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#License_versus_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lic... for an example of the difference.
      - vel0city 5y ago
        > One-sided Its not really one-sided, if I agree to it then I can play Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware on Nintendo online services. Some people see that as a big benefit. > no meaningful choice I definitely have a choice on whether or not I buy/use a Nintendo Switch. My life won't end if I can't play Breath of the Wild or Smash Bros.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Sure, but someone would still have to call them on it and go through years of litigation and related expenses.
- selcuka 5y ago
  Everything is legal until it's not. Unless someone takes it to court they will get away with it. When that happens they will find a slightly more expensive and slightly more legal way to prevent piracy. Rinse and repeat.
zucker42 5y ago
This is doubtful in my opinion, but Nintendo would certainly like us to believe that. I think that Nintendo does this for profiteering purposes, and also because they are irrationally restrictive of unintended usage of their hardware/software/artwork.
- mccorrinall 5y ago
  Do you remember the nintendo ds? Piracy was really awful on this one, especially in Japan. Almost no one bought original games until flash cards were finally banned.
jobs_throwaway 5y ago
any source for that claim?
stolen_biscuit 5y ago
How is this a profit protection measure? And how does it prevent the Switch from being more expensive?
- selcuka 5y ago
  Nintendo makes a profit from game sales, therefore sells the console almost at cost. This hardware measure prevents piracy.
fuzzfactor 5y ago
Not my downvote but I believe when you do the math the equation goes like this: (reduction in functionality) + (fewer options) + (loss of user control) + (handicapped operation) + (hardware underutilization) = higher prices for everyone This is not including things like (planned obsolescence) which are intended to make things more expensive without raising the sales price.
- eru 5y ago
  You don't have to game on Nintendo devices. Open platforms are available on the market.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

...because you agreed to the terms when operating the software.

Sosh101 5y ago
right because all terms are legally enforceable...
mejari 5y ago
You can "agree" to any number of terms that they could put in there that aren't going to hold up to any legal scrutiny.
- gruez 5y ago
  IANAL but contract terms are generally thought to be enforceable unless argued otherwise. Can you furnish the relevant statues/cases that you think make clauses like these unenforceable?
  - mejari 5y ago
    There are many rulings around the idea of "unfair" contracts. https://www.upcounsel.com/unfair-contract-terms-regulations https://www.upcounsel.com/unfair-contract-terms-regulations https://www.ttclub.com/news-and-resources/news/tt-talk/2016/tt-talk---unfair-contract-terms-generally-in-common-law/#:~:text=For%20the%20most%20part%2C%20unfair,allowed%20to%20stand%20as%20is https://www.ttclub.com/news-and-resources/news/tt-talk/2016/....
crooked-v 5y ago
Even that tenuous face value falls apart as soon as you consider that the person who clicks through the UI isn't necessarily the legal owner of the device.
- gruez 5y ago
  That seems like a dispute between the user of the device and the owner. If an unauthorized user used dd to wipe someone's computer without the owner's consent, you don't go after the FSF, you go after the person who ran the command.

kube-system 5y ago

Simply the fact that the device is intended to be used afterwards is enough to disqualify it as criminal destruction.

adrr 5y ago

Just need California to pass referendum making it illegal for software to modify customer hardware without explicit consent from customer and allowing customer to opt out without penalizing customer with reduced functionality from original purchase.