However, the presiding judge explained that flash cards are often used for homebrew and do-it-yourself projects, and that users of the console have the right to develop software for it. The judge compared it to PC users holding a legal license for Microsoft Windows, but still being allowed by law to develop their own software for the operating system.
The court further reasoned that users should have the right to develop software for the system without needing proprietary development kits, and that flash cards assisted them in this regard.
The main problem with the flash carts is that they compromise the security of the system in which they use to deliver content to those that have bought it. It is how they make their money after all. If this takes hold, what ramifications does it have in the European Market?Trying to stop piracy by technological means is a dead-end; piracy is already illegal. There will always be a way around it. At least with flash carts, people are buying Nintendo hardware (as opposed to running emulators on computers or other handhelds).
And the second someone makes a pornographic homebrew game and it falls into the hands of a child, who will be getting sued?Erm, if you want to pin the liability on anyone, I would say whoever gave it to the child (or [negligently?] allowed the child to come into possession of it). I fail to see how DS flash carts differ from any other platform in this regard. There are many companies involved in content creation for the DS. I find it hard to believe that most people would be any more confused about a Square game being played on a Nintendo DS than about a Warner Bros. movie being played on a Sony DVD player.
I think that judge forgets that Nintendo makes it's own systems that are closed. If they want to develop something there are open options or licensing available. If someone is going to violate the terms & usage of something that I myself researched, developed, manufactured, distributed and now use to make money, then I think I have every say on how it can and can't be used.What right does Nintendo have to say what I can and can't do with a physical object that I bought from them? Don't I own it, not them?
QuoteQuoteAnd the second someone makes a pornographic homebrew game and it falls into the hands of a child, who will be getting sued?Erm, if you want to pin the liability on anyone, I would say whoever gave it to the child (or [negligently?] allowed the child to come into possession of it). I fail to see how DS flash carts differ from any other platform in this regard. There are many companies involved in content creation for the DS. I find it hard to believe that most people would be any more confused about a Square game being played on a Nintendo DS than about a Warner Bros. movie being played on a Sony DVD player.
erm.. i see where you were coming from in your other points, but this one musta flewn over your head..?
If mom and pop buy a second hand DS game (say, hannah montana the video game) and lil jimmy goes to pop it in and sees porno or whatever, they're not gonna blame themselves for it and only a few would take it back to the store and complain* the rest would try and blame nintendo themselves because to them there are no third parties; If you buy a NINTENDO DS game for a NINTENDO DS, guess all blame falls on NINTENDO. When news stories start popping up that NINTENDO makes pornography available on their NINTENDO DS.. well thats the sort of liability we're talking about here.
I have to agree with the French Courts here. Sony lets people install Linux and use their own HDDs. Microsoft should be forced to let end-users use their own HDDs too. Saying that they're mainly used for piracy(even though it's true), and should be banned is like saying bongs should be illegal banned because they're mainly used for weed, and radar detectors should be illegal because they're mainly used for speeding.
Let's try to keep the drugs and politics out of here, and keep the talk about video games.
Nintendo licenses software, and the software they license is supposed to be safe to use on their consoles. The software the DS consoles would be playing in this case would be unlicensed. Open or closed platform, the most you can regulate is the software you choose to license. The judge was right: Homebrew software can be used legitimately, and often will be used more legitimately than people perceive. The software isn't licensed, so it's utilized at the risk of whomever uses it, but it's still legal.
Nintendo's had issues with people running unlicensed code since the NES, truthfully, when they've gone to court over the Game Genie. While they can substantiate claims about piracy, running unlicensed code is a different matter, and it consistently is found legal in courts, as long as the unlicensed code doesn't make claims to be licensed.
I have to agree with the French Courts here. Sony lets people install Linux and use their own HDDs. Microsoft should be forced to let end-users use their own HDDs too. Saying that they're mainly used for piracy(even though it's true), and should be banned is like saying bongs should be illegal banned because they're mainly used for weed, and radar detectors should be illegal because they're mainly used for speeding.
So Microsoft should be told what to do with their technology? No offense, but that is a stupid idea. I don't buy into that and other crap that Libertarians say (Libertarians basically think that everything should be legal as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same thing). Bongs are the same here, I doubt that even 1% of the people who own bongs use them for legal purposes. Companies can not (in any country that doesn't support piracy) be told what to do with their technology.
