3 ms·

So you say that the current legal model is users are actually buying the hardware, so they own the hardware. Then nintendo should provide and support everythin

So you say that the current legal model is users are actually buying the hardware, so they own the hardware. Then nintendo should provide and support everything required to give full control of the hardware to users (it intersects the matter of open source supported drivers). You suggest that laws are missing in "free countries" and I would not be surprised: administrations of free countries don't really care about video games and let video game companies do their shaddy stuff. I allow myself to presume because they won't enforce the recycling/refurbishment of the video game hardware by their operating companies.

hacknewslogin 3y ago
>Then nintendo should provide and support everything required to give full control of the hardware to users (it intersects the matter of open source supported drivers). I agree that they should, but they are not required by law to do so. It's not that laws are missing, it's that laws are in place to do the opposite of what you're stating. Nintendo has copyrights protecting their products, software included. They have to share only enough to patent their products, but that info is not made public. That might change in the future, I'm not sure if you're following the current legal battles for "right to repair" in the US and I think in the UK. I think it would apply to consoles as well. Without full control of the hardware and software, users will not be able to do full repairs on systems they own.
- sylware 3y ago
  Well, in my country technical interop seems prime over almost anything (even above DRM legal protection, was explicit in the law), I hope reverse-engineering is still kind of a basic right here and software patent are supposely still illegal. But it has been a while I have been unattentive, and political lobbying to pass toxic laws against basic digital freedom tend to go unoticed. What I am stating is my opinion on how things should be, not what they actually are.

hacknewslogin 3y ago

>Then nintendo should provide and support everything required to give full control of the hardware to users (it intersects the matter of open source supported drivers). I agree that they should, but they are not required by law to do so. It's not that laws are missing, it's that laws are in place to do the opposite of what you're stating. Nintendo has copyrights protecting their products, software included. They have to share only enough to patent their products, but that info is not made public. That might change in the future, I'm not sure if you're following the current legal battles for "right to repair" in the US and I think in the UK. I think it would apply to consoles as well. Without full control of the hardware and software, users will not be able to do full repairs on systems they own.

sylware 3y ago
Well, in my country technical interop seems prime over almost anything (even above DRM legal protection, was explicit in the law), I hope reverse-engineering is still kind of a basic right here and software patent are supposely still illegal. But it has been a while I have been unattentive, and political lobbying to pass toxic laws against basic digital freedom tend to go unoticed. What I am stating is my opinion on how things should be, not what they actually are.