5 ms·

EU court rules that it may be lawful to circumvent console protections

46 points by yulaow 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago
Amazing PR by Nintendo: "Nintendo only ever utilizes technological protection measures which are both necessary and proportionate to prevent widespread piracy of its intellectual property" Naturally, it has nothing to do with the desire to sell gaming systems at a loss and profit from fees paid by video game authors.
- pygy_ 13y ago
  I don't know for the handhelds, but AFAIK, Nintendo's home consoles are profitable from day 1.
  - wnevets 13y ago
    That is only if people buy the thing.
    - swashboon 13y ago
      Which is true for every product?
      - wnevets 13y ago
        of course and no one is buying nintendo's new console, hence its not profitable from day 1.
    - wnevets 13y ago
      weird nintendo fanboys downvoting, didnt realize I was on reddit http://www.rttnews.com/2258993/nintendo-nine-month-profit-down-to-repurchase-up-to-10-mln-shares.aspx?type=corp http://www.rttnews.com/2258993/nintendo-nine-month-profit-do...
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  Don't the Nintendo SDKs used by video game authors not count as IP? These technical protection measures probably benefit video game authors as well, even after you take into account the fees/cut they pay to Nintendo.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    The Nintendo SDKs could/should be given away for free. Their only purpose is to produce software that enriches Nintendo's platform. This is very much the logic behind Microsoft giving away the DirectX SDK, and loaning out XBox development kits at no cost.
    - rahimnathwani 13y ago
      Not giving them away is a reasonable choice on Nintendo's part, and protecting that IP with technical measures (i.e. only allowing software for which Nintendo has received the appropriate licensing fees) is consistent with their stated position. I am not putting forward a position on free/freedom here. I'm just saying that their technical measures are appropriate for the protection they said they seek. It so happens that these technical measures also protect the hardware from being used for other purposes (even without infringing on Nintendo's software IP)...
logfromblammo 13y ago
It would seem to me that if your business model includes fighting against the traditional definitions of ownership, it is only a matter of time before the wheels come off. Nintendo sells hardware. It does not lease those consoles. Once sold, I expect to be able to do as I please with my property, including voiding the warranty within the first 5 minutes. If you cut corners by making your special-purpose device out of a general-purpose computer, and crippling it, you have to expect that someone will eventually remove the handicaps, or otherwise reverse engineer the hardware. Your recourse is to design your machine from the ground up to be special purpose, or to trust those customers who have been screaming "shut up and take my money!" at you for years to keep buying, even though it is technically possible for them to not pay. Given that anti-piracy measures are doomed to failure from a logical standpoint, as the eavesdropper and intended recipient are the same person, increasingly complex technical measures are a waste of time. It should be sufficient to paint a bright yellow line around what is allowed, and what is not, and your regular paying customers will voluntarily avoid stepping over it. Pirates can bust through your defenses regardless. As long as it is easier for people to give you their money than trust an anonymous software pirate, they will pay if they can. If they cannot, you aren't losing anything anyway. At some point, we will all know that absolute security is unlikely when the attacker has access to the hardware, and impossible when they actually own it. The only way to really stop people from infringing copyrights is to make them not want to.
- crististm 13y ago
  Unfortunately, Nintendo and the like want to learn this the hard way. Maybe engineers and middle management know better, but from the upper layers the message comes as "make sure they understand and carry-on our strategy". A strategy defined by an obsession about money instead of one about value.
mjn 13y ago
I know some people who do videogame preservation who are watching this kind of stuff pretty closely. Although preserving original media and devices is often preferred, that can be problematic to rely only on. Disks degrade, old machines are difficult to keep in working order (especially if used by too many people) and find replacement parts for, etc. So for some use-cases being able to dump a disk/ROM/etc. image and being able to run the preserved software on an emulated device provides more reliable archival that's less likely to literally bit rot. But that has to be both possible to do, and legal to do.
gweinberg 13y ago
It sounds to like what Nintendo is doing is more or less the same as what printer manufacturers do to prevent third party ink cartridges from working in their printers.

46 points by yulaow 13y ago

Amazing PR by Nintendo: "Nintendo only ever utilizes technological protection measures which are both necessary and proportionate to prevent widespread piracy of its intellectual property" Naturally, it has nothing to do with the desire to sell gaming systems at a loss and profit from fees paid by video game authors.

pygy_ 13y ago
I don't know for the handhelds, but AFAIK, Nintendo's home consoles are profitable from day 1.
- wnevets 13y ago
  That is only if people buy the thing.
  - swashboon 13y ago
    Which is true for every product?
    - wnevets 13y ago
      of course and no one is buying nintendo's new console, hence its not profitable from day 1.
  - wnevets 13y ago
    weird nintendo fanboys downvoting, didnt realize I was on reddit http://www.rttnews.com/2258993/nintendo-nine-month-profit-down-to-repurchase-up-to-10-mln-shares.aspx?type=corp http://www.rttnews.com/2258993/nintendo-nine-month-profit-do...
rahimnathwani 13y ago
Don't the Nintendo SDKs used by video game authors not count as IP? These technical protection measures probably benefit video game authors as well, even after you take into account the fees/cut they pay to Nintendo.
- dublinben 13y ago
  The Nintendo SDKs could/should be given away for free. Their only purpose is to produce software that enriches Nintendo's platform. This is very much the logic behind Microsoft giving away the DirectX SDK, and loaning out XBox development kits at no cost.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    Not giving them away is a reasonable choice on Nintendo's part, and protecting that IP with technical measures (i.e. only allowing software for which Nintendo has received the appropriate licensing fees) is consistent with their stated position. I am not putting forward a position on free/freedom here. I'm just saying that their technical measures are appropriate for the protection they said they seek. It so happens that these technical measures also protect the hardware from being used for other purposes (even without infringing on Nintendo's software IP)...

logfromblammo 13y ago

It would seem to me that if your business model includes fighting against the traditional definitions of ownership, it is only a matter of time before the wheels come off. Nintendo sells hardware. It does not lease those consoles. Once sold, I expect to be able to do as I please with my property, including voiding the warranty within the first 5 minutes. If you cut corners by making your special-purpose device out of a general-purpose computer, and crippling it, you have to expect that someone will eventually remove the handicaps, or otherwise reverse engineer the hardware. Your recourse is to design your machine from the ground up to be special purpose, or to trust those customers who have been screaming "shut up and take my money!" at you for years to keep buying, even though it is technically possible for them to not pay. Given that anti-piracy measures are doomed to failure from a logical standpoint, as the eavesdropper and intended recipient are the same person, increasingly complex technical measures are a waste of time. It should be sufficient to paint a bright yellow line around what is allowed, and what is not, and your regular paying customers will voluntarily avoid stepping over it. Pirates can bust through your defenses regardless. As long as it is easier for people to give you their money than trust an anonymous software pirate, they will pay if they can. If they cannot, you aren't losing anything anyway. At some point, we will all know that absolute security is unlikely when the attacker has access to the hardware, and impossible when they actually own it. The only way to really stop people from infringing copyrights is to make them not want to.

crististm 13y ago
Unfortunately, Nintendo and the like want to learn this the hard way. Maybe engineers and middle management know better, but from the upper layers the message comes as "make sure they understand and carry-on our strategy". A strategy defined by an obsession about money instead of one about value.

mjn 13y ago

I know some people who do videogame preservation who are watching this kind of stuff pretty closely. Although preserving original media and devices is often preferred, that can be problematic to rely only on. Disks degrade, old machines are difficult to keep in working order (especially if used by too many people) and find replacement parts for, etc. So for some use-cases being able to dump a disk/ROM/etc. image and being able to run the preserved software on an emulated device provides more reliable archival that's less likely to literally bit rot. But that has to be both possible to do, and legal to do.

gweinberg 13y ago

It sounds to like what Nintendo is doing is more or less the same as what printer manufacturers do to prevent third party ink cartridges from working in their printers.