Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NOA to Sue for Flash Advance Linkers

Posted by timothy on from the subject-to-confiscation dept.

SamMichaels writes: "I just received a letter from Nintendo of America claiming that Flash Advance Linkers violate the DMCA...I'm to cease sale in my store, and surrender all remaining units to Nintendo. The letter is posted on the front page of Zophar's Domain. Any pro bono lawyers out there?"

4 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. So wait... by Tebriel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You've got some stock that I assume you legally obtained and post-facto, they want to have the stock turned over to THEM? Shouldn't it be given to customs at least?

    And did these units come through customs in the first place? If so, why weren't they held up then????

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    1. Re:So wait... by syzxys · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How is the parent post flamebait?

      You're right, he shouldn't have to turn the stock over to Nintendo. What the heck do they have to do with it? Are they some kind of governmental body or NGO? I mean, *he bought and paid for the units.*

      Originally, there was precedent for banks seizing property if you didn't pay them, because, let's face it, you owed them money. This was similar to your neighbor coming and beating you up because you borrowed his club and didn't give it back. There was also precedent for governmental agencies (e.g. tax collectors) seizing property, for much the same reason.

      Then, in the 1800's, the US got into "eminent domain." Basically, this means if the state doesn't agree with how you're using some land/property, they can seize it. But note, now for the first time it wasn't "theirs anyway," they're just flat out taking it.

      ...take a little step through seizing illegal drugs, etc...

      and we wind up in the state we have nowadays, where college dorm rooms are routinely raided for computers. I mean, these are people in *college* for crying out loud! Can they really afford to replace their computers? If the FBI wants to take the warez ("illegal materials") or mp3's, shouldn't they just take the hard drives, give the seizee (I think I just invented a new word) a new equivalent capacity or value hard drive, and *oh* -- make sure to give them a copy of the OS too, since you wouldn't want them pirating Windows, which they will obviously do since you just gave them a new, blank hard drive, and that's how we count pirates! Oh, I forgot, it's the secret po^W^WFBI, and you're a Suspected Criminal, so that means all your base are belong to us! Welcome to the land of the free, biotch!

      So obviously, IMO, having *anyone* seizing property because of an *alleged* violation of the DMCA is just way over the top.


      ---
      Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
  2. It'd be nice to see this one go to trial. by Xentax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as I can tell, this is a good candidate for an interesting trial:

    1) It CAN be used to copy games illegally. I don't think anyone will disagree.

    2) It CAN be used to _legally_ copy games, or save data. Nintendo might try to disagree with this being legal, but I don't think they can convince anyone of that in a courtroom.

    So, it has both uses that are legal, and those that infringe on copyright.

    It's been awhile since I read the DMCA, so I'm not sure which particular provision selling this device is supposed to be violating. I'm guessing it's the sale/distribution of a copy-protection-circumvention device.

    The hardware angle would be silly, so it must be that they claim copying their ROMs is the violation. Are GBA ROMs encrypted, or otherwise proof from copying beyond their storage on a chip in a funky plastic case?

    Bottom line, I think these people could mount a fairly strong challenge to at least the lawsuit, and possibly take the route of the DMCA being unconstitutional: It's being used to make a _fair use_ under copyright -- space/time shifting of user data -- illegal.

    Xentax

    --
    You shouldn't verb words.
  3. Re:FYI: The whole letter.... by nanojath · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A few relevant resources -


    http://www.hrrc.org/html/DMCA-leg-hist.html


    DMCA history website.


    http://www.loc.gov/copyright/


    US Copyright office.


    http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pd f


    DMCA summary & analysis


    Section 1201 of the DMCA is basically the anticircumvention stuff. It makes a distinction between devices that allow illegal access to copyrighted material and devices that make illegal copies of copyrighted material. The legal question here is, is this doodad a circumvention device? Does it illegally circumvent some encryption of the ROM data on the GBA cart? If not then it's an issue of, is this a fair use case of copying?

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries