I wish companies like Nintendo would stop wasting time trying to stop pirates and focus on the bigger problems like stores with trade ins like gamestop. They are losing more than 200X as much money from store like that compared to pirates.
Anti-DRM Group Sends Nintendo 200 Bricks
- Thread starter allistairp
- Start date
n ot saying this is how they should sell consoles, but paying for smething,, that can be taken back from you if you breach the rules is as old as selling.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
THe problem is not that things are, but that its not always made clear this is the case which isnt acceptiable.
You mean Nintendo has the right to limit your device that you own. That is how buying things works, you buy a tv its your tv, you buy a car you own the car. LG doe not own the tv I bought, Dodge did not own my last car that i bought. It is so hard to understand when you buy a 3ds you own the 3ds? Your not leasing it Nintendo does not own what i bought. I traded money for a good now i own that good. Oh i'll add another example Samsung doe not own the cell phone I bought. Ill add one more to see if people understand how trading money for goods and services works. My parents bought an HP tower. In that trade they own the tower the device if you will.V8 Ninja said:
Is there a demographic reason so many of the people who frequent this site don't care about their consumer rights or the future of technology? These threads are always filled with people saying Take that pirates! even when the subject will only hurt consumers without hindering pirates. It's getting almost embarrassing. I definitely won't be buying any Nintendo hardware until they stop trying to do such reprehensible things.
Who would have thought Nintendo would have realized that the product you are purchasing from them just MIGHT be used for illegal purposes.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
Yes, many users on the Escapist have no idea how trading currency for goods and services works. Instead they make the connection Consumer rights equals piracy.sunburst313 said:
So do cars does that give Dodge or Toyota the right to take away any functionality of my car if i give it after market rims, or some other after market item? SO do computers does that give Asus the right to brick my laptop if they do not like how i use it? So do cameras does that give Nikon the right to take break someones camera? Illegal actives take places in households too i guess Ryan Homes as the right to come and take apart the house i live in, right? Even boats might be used to illegal purposes i guess if someone has a boat the a company has the right o come and take the engine. Why does Nintendo get a special pass?Echo136 said:Who would have thought Nintendo would have realized that the product you are purchasing from them just MIGHT be used for illegal purposes.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
Your argument holds no water.
that is the funniest reaction i've heard ever.
'the T&C are bollocks.'
'lets send them bricks. and not the good kind, we're saving them for the Pope. make ones out of cardboard.'
it's like something the Joker would do, if the box also contained a bomb and a note. and each brick also contains C4.
'the T&C are bollocks.'
'lets send them bricks. and not the good kind, we're saving them for the Pope. make ones out of cardboard.'
it's like something the Joker would do, if the box also contained a bomb and a note. and each brick also contains C4.
OK, fair enough, but I guess we're getting into a tricky area here, because up until internet connected devices showed up, it was difficult for anyone selling things to even check what you were doing with them.Petromir said:n ot saying this is how they should sell consoles, but paying for smething,, that can be taken back from you if you breach the rules is as old as selling.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
THe problem is not that things are, but that its not always made clear this is the case which isnt acceptiable.
If you can't check what is being done, being technically allowed to take something back is a moot point.
Lol. Who would have thought Nintendo can decide to stop you from doing things which are in fact perfectly legal?Echo136 said:Who would have thought Nintendo would have realized that the product you are purchasing from them just MIGHT be used for illegal purposes.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
(Reverse engineering. Modification of hardware & software, have traditionally been legal as long as you aren't doing them for the sole purpose of doing something illegal with the result.
Homebrew software is legal, despite what companies claim. Pirated games are not. But with technical changes to the device involved being almost identical...)
I would never mod my 3DS or use unauthorized devices (which im guessing is Action Replay), so how does this affect me at all? It doesnt, so my rights arent being infringed at all. Only those who want to cheat the system and pirate games. And dont kid yourself. The majority of the people who would mod their system would do so to pirate games.sunburst313 said:
What is wrong with you people? This isn't about piracy, it's about owning the things you pay for. The terms of service here make it very clear that you don't own the device, they do. You're just paying for the right to use it. If that's how they want to do it, then fine. The device shouldn't cost any money though, because I'm not buying, I'm just renting it. I shouldn't have to pay such a high price for something I don't even own. And to all of the idiots saying "ZOMG STUPID PIRATES LOLZOR!!!" Modding=/=Piracy
Build a bridge, of course. So pirates can GTF over it.totally heterosexual said:
I kid, I kid. But seriously, I do appreciate Nintendo clamping down on the issue of illegal modding, like the R4 cards and such. But maybe rendering the console - which, I might add, ain't cheap - utterly unplayable is a little harsh?
They could temporarily brick it, if you like, and then the only way to reverse this is to take it into an appropriate shop or outlet and have it fixed, more or less proving foul play (but giving you a chance to defend yourself if you are innocent) so Nintendo can deal with it as appropriate.
But then again, there might be ways around this one, I don't know.
I would say that Nintendo having rights to videos and pictures taken with the 3DS is the worst of it. Everyone keeps talking about piracy, but some of the modifications people might make are for making homebrew games. I wouldn't exactly call homebrew piracy.
I guess it's kind of like the old P2P argument because it has legitimate uses, but can also be a tool for piracy.
I guess it's kind of like the old P2P argument because it has legitimate uses, but can also be a tool for piracy.
Wait, Nintendo owns the pictures and videos I'd take? And they can change my terms of service?
They should just add a phone feature and have plans for unlimited texting. I don't like where this Nintendo is going. I'm all for anti-piracy, but what constitutes "unapproved?" If I keep a sexually suggestive picture on my 3DS, am I going to get bricked (I don't own a 3DS).
They should just add a phone feature and have plans for unlimited texting. I don't like where this Nintendo is going. I'm all for anti-piracy, but what constitutes "unapproved?" If I keep a sexually suggestive picture on my 3DS, am I going to get bricked (I don't own a 3DS).
"Along with Nintendo owning rights to video or pictures captured with the device, tracking user activity, and forcing non-optional updates, Nintendo has the right to "render the system permanently unplayable" if an unauthorized device or mod is applied to the system."
...
So, if I take a picture with it, Nintendo is the one who has rights to it? THAT right there scares me. I mean sure, the camera is probably crap and I probably wouldn't use it, but still. The non-optional updates also tend to send chills down my spine about putting a whole lot of stuff I don't want on my game system that I bought.
I can understand the "permanently render unplayable" thing for the case of pirates, but what if maybe the system doesn't recognize a game I bought, or accidentally dropping the system (or throwing it across the room in frustration) triggers the "DENY!" protocols? I know this is alot of supposition, but has anyone ever tried to contact a gaming company to overturn a ban? It isn't fun, and it normally takes weeks to get a response, if they even decide to hear you out and not wall themselves behind a Terms of Agreements statement.
Still, I think the guys who sent the bricks were trolls, whiny fanboys, or both. Unless something reeeaaaally drastic makes me change my mind, personally I'm not buying this new 3DS. It's that simple. I don't agree to their terms of service, I give them the finger, and go about my way. The 3D effect is lame, and probably doesn't work half the time (If Yahtzee is credible, and he probably is).
Good games, a controller scheme that's very comfortable, and maybe making better screens/sound equipment(I think the current level is fine, but hey, you can always improve) for the DS's will make customers a lot more happy than flashy gimmicks. You would think they would have learned after Virtual Boy...Say, didn't that one have 3-d effects too?
...
So, if I take a picture with it, Nintendo is the one who has rights to it? THAT right there scares me. I mean sure, the camera is probably crap and I probably wouldn't use it, but still. The non-optional updates also tend to send chills down my spine about putting a whole lot of stuff I don't want on my game system that I bought.
I can understand the "permanently render unplayable" thing for the case of pirates, but what if maybe the system doesn't recognize a game I bought, or accidentally dropping the system (or throwing it across the room in frustration) triggers the "DENY!" protocols? I know this is alot of supposition, but has anyone ever tried to contact a gaming company to overturn a ban? It isn't fun, and it normally takes weeks to get a response, if they even decide to hear you out and not wall themselves behind a Terms of Agreements statement.
Still, I think the guys who sent the bricks were trolls, whiny fanboys, or both. Unless something reeeaaaally drastic makes me change my mind, personally I'm not buying this new 3DS. It's that simple. I don't agree to their terms of service, I give them the finger, and go about my way. The 3D effect is lame, and probably doesn't work half the time (If Yahtzee is credible, and he probably is).
Good games, a controller scheme that's very comfortable, and maybe making better screens/sound equipment(I think the current level is fine, but hey, you can always improve) for the DS's will make customers a lot more happy than flashy gimmicks. You would think they would have learned after Virtual Boy...Say, didn't that one have 3-d effects too?
Only if own things. In the license rental agree ment model, legally you can do far less as it's not yours, you mearly have a semi perminant loan of it for a flat rate.CrystalShadow said:OK, fair enough, but I guess we're getting into a tricky area here, because up until internet connected devices showed up, it was difficult for anyone selling things to even check what you were doing with them.Petromir said:n ot saying this is how they should sell consoles, but paying for smething,, that can be taken back from you if you breach the rules is as old as selling.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
THe problem is not that things are, but that its not always made clear this is the case which isnt acceptiable.
If you can't check what is being done, being technically allowed to take something back is a moot point.
Lol. Who would have thought Nintendo can decide to stop you from doing things which are in fact perfectly legal?Echo136 said:Who would have thought Nintendo would have realized that the product you are purchasing from them just MIGHT be used for illegal purposes.CrystalShadow said:Who would have thought so many people blindly accept that a device you paid for is owned by the person that sold it to you?V8 Ninja said:
(Reverse engineering. Modification of hardware & software, have traditionally been legal as long as you aren't doing them for the sole purpose of doing something illegal with the result.
Homebrew software is legal, despite what companies claim. Pirated games are not. But with technical changes to the device involved being almost identical...)
I'm not even going to attempt to argue with you about ownership; you obviously don't care. But even you should still be concerned with this TOS. They are selling a device with advertised film capabilities then claiming ownership of all media captured using it. Why doesn't that bother you?Echo136 said:
That's kind of beside the point.Echo136 said:
Ever heard of OpenPandora? It was mentioned here only a few days ago.
By your reasoning, that device should be illegal.
http://openpandora.org/
Why? Well, it's a fully fledged linux PC about the same size as a Nintendo DS...
But if you look around, it's no. 1 use is...
Emulation of game consoles.
Which is the same use as the most common PSP, DS, Xbox, Wii, PS3, and so on mods.
But, as with all of those mods, there are other things you can do with them.
So... Should a device like the OpenPandora be illegal to own?
How about a desktop PC? Same problem. Anyone that owns one can do anything they like with it. Up to and including writing an entirely new operating system, emulating game consoles, or playing pirated games on it.
People don't generally argue a PC should only be able to run MS windows, and be disabled if you modify it in a way Microsoft (or some other company involved in making it or the software that runs on it) doesn't like...
Yet we're perfectly fine with console manufacturers doing precisely that?
Why?