Slashdot Mirror
NOA to Sue for Flash Advance Linkers
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?"
Before stirring up the big crock of readers, you might first explain what the hell a flash advance linker is, and why we should give a damn.
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
...if companies are allowed to seize the stock of something that was being sold and may be borderline. If this extends too far, stores may not even want to keep any inventory on hand for fear of it being seized and them not compensated, when they most likely doing nothing wrong by selling them.
Since the shopping site is low on details, here's TechTV's 7-paragraph description of the product.
Dear Sam Michaels:
a cc
Nintendo of America Inc. (NOA) is providing this letter of notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, USC 17 1201(b) (DMCA) and the US Customs ruling dated December 20, 2001, regarding the import, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker. US Customs confirmed the Flash Advance Linker violates the DMCA and is subject to confiscation.
This notice is addressed to the agent designated by Zophar's Domain to receive notifications of claimed infringements, as reflected in the current records of the U.S. Copyright Office.
NOA has a good faith belief that the internet site found at www.zophar.net infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights by distributing illegal imports of the Flash Advance Linker in violation of section 1201(b) of the DMCA and subject to seizure under 19 USC 1595a(c)(2)(c) by US Customs.
The e-commerce page offering the Flash Advance Linker for sale was found on your site at:
http://www.zophar.net/store/items.phtml?gba-
Nintendo demands that you immediately cease the importation, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker and turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo.
The Flash Advance Linker appearing on Zophar.net has been identified by its title, description [and/or] depictions of associated artwork. Based on the information at its disposal on February 19, 2002, NOA believes that the statements in this notice are accurate and correctly describe the infringing nature and status of the infringing material.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nintendo of America Inc. at the following address, telephone and fax numbers, and/or e-mail address:
Nintendo of America Inc.
Attn: Anti-Piracy Group
4820 150th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone: 425-861-2187
Fax: 425-882-3585
E-mail: Noalegal@noa.nintendo.com
We look forward to working with you to immediately resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
Is it just me or does it seem like every company is suddenly pretending they are bearing the cross of piracy.. How long before you have to buy gamesharks on the black market?? Before your aftermarket controller for your ps2 is infringing on sony's right to sell you their controller.
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
I never really understood how something that had legitimate uses that were not illegal could be classified as breaking any laws. Something that requires users to actually voluntarily start using it to, for example, warez nintendo games rather than play PD shoot em ups seems to put the crime squarly on the shoulders of the user than the makers of the tool.
Hell, I could beat up old people with VHS copies of TV's Blossom, but I would never advocate banning Blossom... well, I *would*, but for taste reasons more than anything. Damn that annoying Six!
http://www.davetansley.com - you proba
I don't think I've seen a better example that the DMCA stifles innovation than this.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
What's so rude about it? Can you enlighten the rest of us?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Since when did US Customs become an authority on copyright law? Yes, they have a responsibility to prevent the import of items which violate the DMCA, but it's on a case by case basis and always subject to appeal.
What part of the DMCA gives NOA the right to ask for the unsold stock?
--
E_NOSIG
I have a feeling that the /. effect will shut this guy's store down faster than the DMCA could ever hope to.
Cheaper than going to his ISP and cutting him off there, and certainly cheaper than legal battles
Ok, I cannot figure out how the hell the DMCA would apply here. It appears to me that the product allows the download of the data off of the cartridges and onto the computer, as well as the upload of data from the computer to the GBA. It would seem to me that if that were illegal computer CD players and CDRW burners would be illegal as well as they allow COPYRIGHTED data to be transfered to a computer, and then through use of a burner transfered from the computer onto the media. Somebody should hand the NintenDUH people a cluestick.
Well, there were two gameboy advance competitions. One was on www.gbadev.org - go take a look.Obviously quite a few people are using these for purposes other than pirating.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
I would have to argue that. I own a GBA and a few games that I'd like to play more. Advance wars works OK, but Castlevania COTM is almost unplayable unless you're in direct sunlight. I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems with the screens being too dark. I wouldn't mind loading up the Castlevania ROM in an emulator and playing it on a PC, it's a great game but I've given up finishing it until the summer, when I can get all the sunlight I need even on work days.
Granted I know there are a lot of people out there that are not quite so honest when it comes to emulation, basically the same people that distribute 0-day movies and playstation ISO's.
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
http://www.visoly.com/fa_linker.php
The Flash Advance Linker is the first professionial mass produced development device for the Gameboy(TM) Advance.
Just like a Cradle for your Palm or other Handheld Computer, the GBA Flash Advance Linker is plugged in to the printer port of your PC. Once connected, it can simply send and receive game ROM data from or to the plugged in game or Flash Cartridge.
Reading out game ROM data (dumping):
Once your original GBA game has been plugged in to the Flash Advance Linker, you can use the provided software to read out the rom data and save it to your local PC harddrive as a so-called ROM file. The Flash Advance Linker also lets you read out the savegame to store it in an extra file - you won't use any game data, e.g. when the battery in your original GBA game gets empty.
Sending ROM files to your empty cartridge (Flash Advance 64/128/256M):
Simply use the provided software to open the ROM file from your harddrive, it will then send the data through the printer port to the Flash Advance Linker, which will store the data in the Cartridge - just as when you connect your MP3 Player to your PC to 'fill' it with songs. Totally easy!
***
Yup, this can be used to pirate games. It can also be used to back them up, too... But hey, the DMCA doesn't care about that.
Of course, the industry is well aware of the weaknesses of the DMCA and will try hard to avboid a weak case going to court. That's why they dropped their beef with Felten/Princeton over digital audio watermarking, for example. Whenever they encounter credible resistance they will back off. Eventually it's going to have to go to court, though.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
For all that is wrong with it, DMCA did not abandon or overturn this concept. This item, like a VCR, obviously has significant utility that does not involve violation of copyright. Nintendo doesn't stand a chance.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Where does the law allow Nintendo to make this demand? "...turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo."
Defecation occurs.
IANAL, but it seems like the arguement is pretty simple to me. This device lets you pull games off of carts and put games onto carts, right? This case should be pretty easy.
Just bring up video editing stations. They're perfectly legal, right? What do they allow you to do? You can pull video off a tape, DAT or DVD, and put video onto a tape, DAT or DVD. You need to do this in order to do your job as a video content producer. You can't do your job without this equipment. If the government were to make it illegal, you'd be screwed. Since video editing equipment is still legal, thus the standard is set.
Back to the Flash thingy. GBA programmers cannot do their job without a device to put code onto the carts and get it back off them, nor can they sell their product without a means to get the programs to people.
All you have to do to win is argue that this standard has already been set in the courts with the video equipment, a precedent therefore exists, and to top it off a bunch of small businesses (which America is supposed to adore) would be obliterated without this equipment they need to perform their legitimate occupations. Seems pretty easy to me.
Call me if you want me to argue the case.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
If it is merely a flash memory, how, exactly is it circumventing an encryption scheme? Obviously something is going on there, else we would be unlikely to see the Verisign logo so prominently displayed at the web site. If anybody knows what is going on there, I'd be most interested.
As to "pro bono" attorneys, why would you ever need to rely on that? You're just the buyer of a vendor's accused product. As the buyer of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code, you generally receive them subject to an implied warranty against infringement. Ordinarily, even if the warranty is expressly disclaimed, purchase orders still provide for indemnification of IP claims. Why not call the vendor and ask them why their "for a buck" lawyer isn't protecting you for free? You might also ask your insurance company if you have any coverage under you general umbrella, either for advertising injury or otherwise.
Of course, this isn't legal advise one way or the other. There aren't sufficient facts presented to indicate whether or not you would be liable, not liable for the demand or have, not have a claim for contribution from your vendors or distributors. It would make sense, and you really, really have to do this now, to have a lawyer at least look at the coverage questions.
DMCA or no, a handheld video camera can be used to film your neighbors undressing. Legally right or wrong, it's a pretty rude thing to do. By your reasoning, the sale of video cameras should be illegal, because they could, possibly, be used for something illegal. The same would apply to oh, say, a glass Coke bottle, because it -could- be used to beat someone over the head. This device allows people to upload games as well, I would consider it pretty rude to anyone who might be trying their hand at GBA programming for it to be banned and keeping them from testing their games. Contrary to popular belief, feeding trolls can be both entertaining, and rewarding!
The DMCA refers to the breaking of encryption, I don't believe it has any revelance on a device that helps you copy non encrypted data?
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.
This is probably just a ploy to get us /.'ers to buy a bunch of these things before "Nintendo makes him give them over to them." :)
All kidding aside, I used to like the big N a lot back in the day, but how can this break the DMCA? Is the fact that there are not readily available cart readers mean that it's a "circumvention device?" It doesn't appear to decrypt anything or break any kind of circ. device, looks like it just copies bits off the cart.
So someone more knowledgable want to explain how this falls under the DMCA?
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
VHS, DVD, and the like are standards. Nintendo cartridges are not. The content of VHS tapes is protected, but not the actual device. In the case of the Nintendo cartridge, the entire thing is protected by copyright. This means that the precedent does not apply.
~ now you know
This was nothing more then a form letter from NOA legal, for this reason. Some guy at www.cultchydren.com e-mailed NOA with the following(a cut and paste from their site, I don't want to give them any traffic)
Subj: Sales of illegal copier units
Date: 2/12/02 6:58:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: cultchyldren@aol.com
To: piracyscene@noa.nintendo.com
Dear NOA Legal:
During my searches to find LEGAL NOA distributers and local stores, I stumbled onto a very disturbing piracy site. It can be found at: http://www.zophar.net/. It is a site that has illegal emulators on it, but the most disturbing part is that they use the illegal emulators to draw in people to buy illegal copier units for the Gameboy Advance system.
I thought that I should inform you that people were making dishonest money from your products, and should be looked into quickly. These people should be shown that stealing is wrong. If you need a direct url to the problem, it can be found at: http://www.zophar.net/store/items.phtml?gba-acc
The guys from the site have a grudge against zophar.net that goes back years, not getting into it.
But I just wanted to clear up that this isn't just NOA laying down the law for no reason. This is just a form letter, a response to the e-mail that was sent to them above.
Why am I suddenly reminded of Homer Simpson looking skyward and saying, "I'm not usually a praying man, but if you can hear me, save me, Superman!"
Even if the EFF or another advocacy group is in a position to swoop down from the sky and help take your case, this is a major international corporation you're dealing with, and a broadly written law (the DMCA) that has many constitutional questions surrounding it. You will likely need to spend the money on a good attorney to represent you if you intend to fight this.
Additions to the system with any 3rd party upgrade has been severyly limited. This limits the systems value. I'll keep that in mind. It limits the value of the core product to a low level. I no longer see value in closed propritory systems. No thanks. I can vote with my wallet and not break the DMCA.
The truth shall set you free!
As far as I know, that activity is legal, so long as you own the game you are copying, and are making the copy for your personal backup.
From the documentation, the device also aids in the creation of new software. Many software tools fall into the category of being able to be abused for illegal purposes, much as a screwdriver or pliers can be construed to be burglary tools under the right circumstances.
However, since they have legitimate primary purposes, you can't run into Sears and confiscate their stock on the grounds someone might abuse the tools.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
And did these units come through customs in the first place? If so, why weren't they held up then????
usually when items liked this are shipped, they are marked in a way so that customs doesn't stop them. i have seen them shipped marked as "gift" with a value of "under $30 USD". coming from Hong Kong you can get an item in less than 10 business days in this manner.
it is a constant discussion around our office when someone's linker for their GBA arrives: how does US Customs know what is inside is not drugs, kiddie pr0n, etc?? we don't know. all we know is marking it in the above fashion seems to work.
no idea if the guy in this story got his sent marked as such, but i would bet he did.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
There is no reverse engineering going on here. Everything regarding the technical know how to do this is available from Nintendo themselves. SamMichaels is it? Tell Nintendo to take the DMCA and shove it up their ass. While you're at it send them a flash linker and tell them to make you a deal you can't refuse. Otherwise; tough shit for them. All of this could of been avoided with a simple, we'll buy all the flash linkers you have and pay you not to make any for the next 5 yrs. Maybe they could of thought of something like this first, but when you are late to the market don't pull this DMCA shit outta your ass Nintendo. We know what it is, we don't like it and we don't like big companies thinking they can do whatever they want flashing the DMCA in everyones face when it doesn't apply; especially when it's something you should of thought of yourself and now wanna knock the small guy down so you can then make money off his idea. Fuck you; I feel like returning my Gamecube and denouncing up down up down left right left right a b start.
Items which violate the DMCA include:
pencil/pen and paper
typewriter
word processors
floppy disks
hard disks
any network which links 2 or more computers
serial, parallel, network, USB and firewire cables
modems
VCRs and PVRs
I'm sure I've missed some obvious ones.
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
The law does not allow for this demand. However anyone can make whatever demands they want.
Essentially, they are saying he is in violation of the DMCA. If he stops selling, and gives them his stock, they wont prosecute him, or sue him for civil damages.
If he doesnt give it over (and he doesnt have to) then they will go by the book, and try to nail him for what they say is a violation of the DMCA
You, and the DMCA, are confounding the concepts of a crime and a tool that may be used to commit a crime. Tools should not, and generally are not, outlawed simply because they could be used to commit crimes. I could use a gun to rob a bank -- should guns be outlawed? I could use a crowbar to rob a house -- should crowbars be outlawed? I could use a pillow to smother a grandmother -- should pillows be outlawed?
I didn't know that US Customs was a body capable of ruling on whether a product violates the DMCA. Once something is determined to violate the DMCA, it would make sense that they could confiscate it but they are an enforcement organization.
From all descriptions I've read (not that many) the primary purpose of this device is to copy GBA roms to catridges that can be played on the GBA. All marketing I can find markets it as a development tool. I don't see how it meets the ``primarily designed for...'' requirements.
Then again, IANAL
No, he refused to mis-label his packages in an attempt to not cause problems with Customs. Read the site.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
While it is possible to use such devices to develop games, that is not the intended market for this product. This product is probably used to copy commercial games onto secondary media. In and of its self, Nintendo would not care too much. However, because anyone can buy it online, it makes casual piracy too easy. People can use this tool to buy a game, burn it, and return it. Or they can simply find the ROM online, and not even purchase it.
Emulators are not too much of a threat to a console. The games simply suck badly when played on a Keyboard, and PC controllers just dont feel right. But this allows you to play these games on a GBA. This is a direct threat to what is currently Nintendo's most consistent source of income. So of course they will go after it and try to kill it.
END COMMUNICATION
Mainly, that it *takes away* the previously established right to make a single copy for backup purposes. It clearly states that circumventing copy protection is grounds to be in violation of the DMCA. And don't blather on about constitutionality... the right to make a single backup for archive purposes is only spelled out in the 1971 Copyright Act.
Granted, I don't agree with the DMCA, but this device is *very clearly* a violation of it. It's not that it's *used* to make copies of protected material, but that it's *designed* to make copies of protected materials.
Let me start by saying IANAL - so this isn't advice. If you're looking for pro bono help, contact the EFF or someone.
That being said, it looks like its yet another example of the ol' "substantial non-infringing use" argument. This is the same logic that Sony floated to get the VCR past Hollywood's objections back in the day. For anyone interested in poking around on FindLaw.com, that's Sony Corp. of America v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). See also Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
The basic idea is that the VCR was a 'staple article of commerce' - it was widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, such that this value outweighed any infringing conduct that it might facilitate. I'd like to hear what any other law-oriented folks out there think.
Can the Flash Advance Linker be construed as a staple article of commerce? Isn't this the same argument that Diamond made to avoid an injunction on the Rio?
On the one hand, the back-up capacity of a product always lends creedence to the substantial non-infringing use argument. And suppressing the device to prevent public-domain games from entering the market might even be construed as misuse of copyright (reference Napster's counterattack on A&M... but I digress...)
On the other hand, notice of alleged infringement goed toward undermining the 'staple article of commerce' argument. The Ninth Circuit's Napster opinion suggested that the 'staple article of commerce' argument only went toward the knowledge element of contributory infringement, and thus didn't matter, because the evidence demonstrated that Napster clearly had knowledge of the infringing conduct.
Come to think of it, I don't know of any distributors ever making this argument. Particularly when no one has raised any arguments about contributory infringment.
So what do all you IP types out there think?
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Here is the DNS for the manufacturers web site
Visoly
Henry Lo
Shop 64, G/F, 148 - 152 Fuk Wah Street, Shum Shui Po
Hong Kong, Kowloon -
HK
Phone: +852 23785236
Fax..: +852 23785237
Email: webmaster@visoly.com
I presume its harder to go after the HK connection, so shut down any US marketing and distribution for the product first. A cheap form lawyers letter might get you some results
I would suggest the recipient gets some quick PROPER legal advice first - THEN decides on his response
(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
(IANAL) www.visoly.com markets the device as a means for independant game developers to produce their own cartridges. Unless you or someone you know is marketing it as a game copier, NOA would have to prove that independant game developers are a "limited commercially significant purpose", or that visoly is cooperating with someone who is marketing the device as a game copier.
mu optical out on my stero allows me to make exact duplicates, should they be able to seize my stereo?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
--IANAL--
They say it is illegal according to section 1201(b), but they don't get too specific.
By their own argument you can say that section 1201 (b) section 2) paragraphs (A) and (B) protect YOU because
``(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
``(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose oruse other than to circumvent atechnological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title
Furthermore, section 3) paragraph (A) States,
``(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a tech-
nological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
Does this device actually descramble or decrypt anything? Dont they put copy protection on their roms?
By using those two statements in section 2, they are implying the only commercial use of this device is to copy ROMs. The defense is that the device is intended to allow a would-be game programmer to program a flash device and develop his/her own games for the GBA. I believe in the USA you are guilty until proven innocent. This means the burden of proof that this device has no other commercial use is upon NOA. Either they prove it or they shut the fsck up.
On the other hand, money buys politicians. Good Luck, you'll need it against them arseholes!
-- this space for rent --
Their letter doesn't explain what "technological measure" your product circumvents. After reading a description of the product, I am sceptical that there is any technological measure at all, so this doesn't look like a violation of 1201(b). At the end of the letter, they ask you to contact them if you have questions. It might be useful to get their clarification on what "technological measure" has been circumvented.
They also use the word "infringe" which implies that in addition to a DMCA violation, there is also a copyright infringement. But the letter doesn't explain. It sounds like Nintendo lawyers are making things up as they go along.
This isn't US Customs' job. If US Customs is spending my tax money hiring lawyers to research things on behalf of private corporations such as Nintendo, then I want my tax money back.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Surely there must be a distinction between owning equipment that has the potential to be used for copyright infringement and actually using it for illegal purposes. CD burners, floppy drives etc are legal so I can't see why this product can't be legal too.
Unfortunately I don't think it's going to be a case of who's right and who's wrong but rather Nintendo has a bigger legal budget than ZD.
Incorrect, DMCA refers to circumventing a protective device
Ok, so what 'protective device' is there on a gameboy that is supposedly being circumvented?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Look on the lower left of this site:
http://www.visoly.com/
This is the developer's site of the product in question, and right on the same page it links to a page on various Nintendo Emulators. Anything that could have implied "developer's tool" flew out the window just by having that link there. It'll be really tough for them to prove it's not a device intended for piracy.
There *is* a legal product out there for uninitiated developers out there. Check out this page:
http://www.mp3games.net/demo.htm
Basically, this is a product you can buy at Software Etc that allows you to write programs for the GBA and download them into a little cartridge. This device claims it won't play 'copyrighted games'. Once you write apps for the GBA, you can trade them on the net etc. To the best of my knowledge, it's still for sale. I don't think Nintendo is fighting this one because it's clearly a developer's device.
I'm against the DMCA, I think it's poorly executed. I've been very vocal about that here. But this is a case where I think Nintendo is in the right. If this product did have legit uses, it was VERY BONEHEADED to link to an emulator's site on the product page. I'm with Nintendo on this one.
"Derp de derp."
Um, so CD burners should be illegal because they can make exact duplicates of the original? How about CD copying software? How about blank CD's? For fsck's sake, man, how about computers in general? Heck, every time I boot, I'm reading copyrighted Microsoft (sorry, but it's true) material into my system's memory, goddamit!
Do you really believe the Sony/Nintendo/RIAA theory that anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal? I'm really curious. From Pentium processers to bleach, I'll bet I can find an illegal use for just about anything. Under this line of reasoning, rocks would be illegal because you could bang someone over the head with them. And don't try to claim "that's different", unless you're willing to argue that copyright violation is so much worse than murder that it merits much more legislative and judicial intervention in peoples' daily lives.
Bottom line: we're dangerously close to living in a system where intellectual property laws and cases operate on a presumption of guilt. That's just messed up.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
I could use a gun to rob a bank -- should guns be outlawed?
Yes. But they are constitutionally protected.
Most law firms do handls a certian amount of pro-bono per year. You might have to call them your self and ask.
of course the first place to start is the eff. If nothing else, they might be able to point you in the right direction.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It seems to me that this is an instance of a more general problem -- all software and equipment which end-users can use to create/distribute their own media (music/video/games/whatever) can also be used to create/distribute unauthorized copies of "mainstream" media.
And, in fact, that is indeed invariably their primary use. Artists/writers/programmers are always going to be a minority.
These things are increasingly being legislated and prosecuted accordingly. Independent content/media/software creators are going to get very screwed, and our cultural development will be ceded entirely to corporations.
While this might not be the primary intended effect, I'm sure the aforementioned conglomerates don't really mind it as a side-effect.
The only defense I can see is to create a body of "libre" independent content that most people will actually care about, so there would be some outcry when it was threatened. "mainline" indy media is unfortunately too esoteric most of the time.
That would, however, most likely require a source of patronage outside the media conglomerates. I don't see e.g. an animated feature being assembled in the same way as the Linux kernel.
DNA just wants to be free...
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.p
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
This, however, is a device which someone could use to produce exact copies of nintendo games and then resell them, and that's just plain illegal, and justifiably so
In the same way that a VCR makes duplicates of TV hows? Or a CD writer makes duplicates of CDs? The fact that a tool can be used for something illegal does not make it bad and wrong. Just because something can be used for illegal uses doesn't immediately mean it will be. These linkers have a legal and valid purpose, backing up your games. What if I use it for that purpose? Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
http://twitter.com/onion2k
...and I use it legitimately. There's a GNU GBA C compiler and tools available and it's fun to develop simple games for it. Of course I can't sell anything I produce, but the amateur GBA developer scene is very active and I can't see how it harms Nintendo in any way. Quite the opposite in fact; I wouldn't have bought a GBA if I couldn't program it. Checkout http://www.gbadev.org for more about the GBA amateur developer scene.
While the flash linker can be used for piracy, this case is exactly the same as the one reported here earlier about the Dreamcast-PC serial cable. Just because it could be used for piracy doesn't mean it is.
Having said all that, I can see why Nintendo are going after this kit - GBA roms are easy to find on the net and are small enough that even the slowest modem connection can download them.
Nintendo are very different from companies like Sony and Microsoft in that they keep tight control of the content of any software developed for their hardware through draconian licences. They see their consoles as being aimed primarily at younger children and try to discourage development of 'adult' titles. Sites like http://foon.pocketheaven.com/ that carry unlicenced software weaken their position so, while being legal, their position is precarious. As a flash linker is required to get the software from unlicenced developers onto the GBA, it's no surprise that this is where Nintendo's attack lawyers would concentrate their efforts. The DMCA just makes them an even more tempting target.
--
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
These doodads are essentially memory cards, and on the right market places, memory is just a commodity.
If I'd gotten such a letter, I'd report NOA for attempted theft by trickery.
Say no to software patents.
This is to be able to play Nintendo games under emulators on PCs, PDAs, and other machines, right? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
1. Game ROMs for every Nintendo game under the sun are already on the net for download. Anyone who just wants the ROM for a game doesn't need this device.
2. Therefore anyone who would want one of these likely buys (i.e. owns) the cartridges themselves and is trying to "do the right thing" by Nintendo.
3. The game console is usually a loss-leader to sell the games.
So it seems to me that Nintendo's financial situation is actually improved by this device, since console (sold at a loss) sales can be cut back while game sales continue unabated, played on PDAs and PCs?
Where's the harm? It seems like Nintendo should continue to go after all of the ROM pirates already out there, but encourage sale of this device, since it requires that the user buy the cartridges in order to be useful. Am I missing something really obvious, or is this just a company shooting themselves in the foot because they're so orgasmic about intellectual property rights?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Attn: Anti-Piracy Group
4820 150th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone: 425-861-2187
Fax: 425-882-3585
E-mail: Noalegal@noa.nintendo.com
Is Redmond, WA really the source of all the evil in the world ?
<TROLL>Osama, if you're still alive and still want to play with bioweapon, start there !</TROLL>
IANAL but I would respond
1) Make the good faith claim that to you knowledge this device does not violate the DMCA, and they therefore have no rights to make their further claims. Demand that they prove other wise, under threat of perjury.
2) That reverse engineering this device would constitue a breach of DMCA. So they cannot prove other wise.
3) The threat constitues and illegal restraint of trade, and inform them that you will counter-sue.
4) Clearly state that further investigation on their behalf will result in an invoice for T&M for investigation of their claims.
I'm a bit of a rabid video game fanatic. When all is said and one I have 10 consoles and hand-held systems lying around the house, as well as quite a few games for each. I also tend to be a big fan of Nintendo and their work (I have every one of their systems, including a Virtual Boy). I'm forcing myself to hold out on getting a GameCube until Metroid Prime came out. Or at least I was.
I can't begin to describe how utterly wrong this is to me. I mean, the Sklyarov bit was one thing, but this... this is a cornerstone of the EMU community! This IS the EMU community! It is also an example of everything that is good and right in the EMU community. Other than the emulators themselves, there is NO copyrighted material at zophar.net, not even PSX BIOS images. Their efforts support coding afficionados (both emulator and public domain game writers) and nostaligic gamers alike, giving them an opportunity to explore their passions that they otherwise wouldn't have. They also fill the gaps that publishers leave by hosting translation patches for ROM images, in more languages than you can shake a stick at. In my opinion this is tantamount to Lockheed-Martin suing the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.
The defense of ZD in their efforts to both support themselves monetarily (more-or-less on a non-profit level) and to support video game fans in execrizing their Fair Use rights with their legally-owned software in my opinion comes before my personal addiction to video games. I want to help ZD in some way, and seeing as how I don't have a law degree all I can do is donate what money I might have spent on video games to the cause of getting ZD a good lawyer. And I think anybody who's ever used ZD at one point or another should consider doing this.
So if Swampgas would be so kind as to set up a PayPal donation button or something of the kind, I'll gladly start by sending him the $200 I would have otherwise spent on a GameCube.
Why is copying the game illegal?
Distributing copies of the game is clearly copyright infringement. Wouldn't you need a supply of blank cartridges to do that?
--
E_NOSIG
The case against DeCSS succeeded because MPAA convinced the judge that the possibility of piracy and the potential loss of revenue was more important than the rights of the small community who wanted to use the software legally. Is this any different?
Nintendo will claim the DeCSS case as a precedent, saying it allows people to pirate their games. The users will claim it's fair use. Who's going to win?
Nintendo.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
For example: if someone was standing outside of someone else's house and that first person was selling keys to that house without the owner's permission, then that would be illegal. This example is very specific and might or might not apply to the DMCA, but it does show that there are possible exceptions to the idea that a tool should not be made illegal to own or distribute.
I do believe that except for very specific and limited cases, tools should not be illegal to own or distribute. Where the line is drawn between legal tools and illegal tools is certainly up for debate.
Sapere aude!
That presumes that copying the game is always illegal. If I buy any material protected by copywrite, it is perfectly legal for me to make as many copies as I wish for my own personal use. That applies to books, films, or whatever. I can make backup copies, copies to use in different locations, even copies to line my parrots cage if I wish. The backers of the DCMA want to take that legal right away. They were not able to do so directly, so they went after the tools.
There's a specific exemption in the DMCA for transient memory copies necessary to produce functionality. It's not pertinent to the case in hand, I just thought I'd mention it.
Unfortunately, in this case Nintendo are just following the law as written (apart from trying to sieze the goods). They actually have a duty to their shareholders to do this. The problem is with the dumb law and the corrupt politicians that passed it, not the predatory people using it to their advantage, or the businesses who bought those politicians.
Let's stay focussed on the issue, which is to tell (not ask, tell) our elected representatives to repeal the law. The courts are a gamble, the predactory companies are a certainty. Fix the cause, not the symptoms.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Depends on where you live. Remember, in the UK guns are outlawed for precisely this reason.
To rehash the old argument: You're right about crowbars, because crowbars are intended to be used for opening things, and that's still their primary use. However, when a tool's intended and primary purpose is to commit illegal acts, its legality becomes dubious.
In the USA, the argument goes that guns' primary use is for self-defense and hunting, so they should be legal. In the UK, that doesn't hold up. In the case of the Flash Advance, its primary purpose is to duplicate licensed GBA games from your friends or play downloaded ROMs from the Internet. That puts it in the "dubious" category.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for Zophar's Domain. They should have seen this coming.
Food for thought:
There's this game that lawyers play called "See What We Can Get Out of Them". This letter is the first round of this game. During this round, lawyer does a very small amount of data collection to see if there's a posssibility of a lawsuit. Lawyer then sends nasty sounding letter to the evil person supposedly violating whatever laws demanding as many outlandish things as possible.
This first round makes receiver of letter feel uncomfortable, and most law-abiding citizens feel obligated to cough up their gonads right then and there for fear of being prosecuted/embroiled in controversy. This part is psychological and more for shock effect and seeing what Lawyer can get out of you.
I work with a lawyer on a daily basis. Said lawyer does this kind of crap just for fun to see how much said lawyer can get away with. People will do anything not to be sued, etc. and it seems that lawyers just like to watch people squirm.
I do believe that NOA has no right to ask you for the merchandise without a judgement of some kind. Quoting the DMCA is great and all, but there hasn't been litigation of any kind and they can't make up terms for your innocence/guilt. You haven't been charged with anything, this isn't a case that's gone to court yet.
Good luck.
What I want to know is this: How in hell are we, as a community, going to get rid of the DMCA if we can't even agree on what it is?
I'm not flaming or trolling here. Who's going to think of geeks as an interest group if every member of that group has a different opinion about the topic at hand?
What's this Submit thingy do?
Linking to an emulator site in and of itself isn't grounds for considering this thing to be a piracy device. You could point to other emulators used in the development of software for handhelds for an example. The POSE emulator, which emulates the Palm platform, was actually embraced by Palm and promoted as a way to easily develop software for the platform without having to go through the trouble of downloading to a deveice. Considering, from a description of this device, that it takes several minutes to download a ROM to the Gameboy, it seems logical that a developer would want ot use the quick turnaround of using an emulator instead. I expect that Nintendo's (and whoever else makes games for the platform) engineers use emulators extensively while developing new products.
That being said, the people selling this thing are probably still screwed, since it's likely Nintendo can claim that somewhere in their product is some obfuscation (like an undocumented pinout on the cartridges) that qualifies as a copy protection method that this unit circumvents. As you say, the law sucks, but it's still a law until struck down or repealed.
Okay--we need to hear from /. readers who actually ARE lawyers. In particular, we need to hear from geek lawyers who are familiar with federal regulations, how they are formulated, and what is the precise legal meaning of "ruling."
This letter from Nintendo is a threat. Find a small business, threaten them with the wrath of God, watch them roll over. But--the threat has to be credible. The premise of the threat from Nintendo is contained in the second paragraph of the letter:
The key question here is, what ruling was made by the U.S. Customs Service on December 20, 2001? Was this a ruling in a judicial proceeding? If so, does the U.S. Customs Service have the ability to conduct judicial proceedings that are binding on other jurisdictions? (I seem to recall that Admiralty courts in the U.S. are conducted by the U.S. Customs Service. But the DMCA and its application to a game cartridge emulator would seem to be outside the purview of an Admiralty court.)
Or was the "ruling" akin to the "private letter rulings" issued by the Internal Revenue Service, which are used to advise tax professionals of the IRS's view of the legality of a given strategy or vehicle. In other words, did Nintendo of America go to a U.S. Customs Service office, present some documentation asserting that the Flash Advance Linker could be used to illegally copy Gameboy cartridges, and thus (they argued) it violates the DMCA. If it is the latter, I would think the threat from Nintendo carries a lot less force--they got somebody to agree with their view of the situation. That's not the same thing as having as precendent a settled issue of law. (For contrast: if you get a letter from the local Temperance Union insisting that you cease and desist from the manufacture, transportation, distribution, and/or sale of beer--because you're in a "dry" county--you're in a different fight. Temperance rules may seem silly, but they're a settled legal issue.)
If the DMCA is to be challenged, these guys need help
A common legal tactic is to establish a court precendent someplace, and then extend that precendent across the country. I learned this the hard way, early in my career, when the Internal Revenue Service decided to make an example of my employer at the time (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 743 F.2d 148 (3rd Cir. 1984).). We won--but only because of substantial financial and legal support from other (larger) publishing houses that stood to be hurt down the road. Almost twenty years ago I was hustling contributions to a legal defense fund of more than $50K--today it would require much, much more than that.
There is an alternative...
You generally cannot intervene in a private lawsuit. And Nintendo is almost certainly assuming that this store isn't going to go all the way to court over this. But you can ask your Congressman to "look into this" and report back to you on the merit of foreign software corporations using the DMCA to prevent U.S. software developers from writing software for a popular computing platform. With enough publicity, and enough questions from Congress, Nintendo might be persuaded to back off.
zophar's domain was an emu site LONG before gba flash linkers even existed. They just recently started up the zd store to help pay for bandwith expenses caused by being a major emu site. No real profit is being made here; it is unlikely that their weak sales even let the site break even.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
IANAL.... but I was employed by ZTnet (hosting Zophar's domain and many other emulator sites) as Director of New Business (hehe a .com business title if you ever heard one) around three years ago when there were other troubles with Nintendo .UltraHLE was hosted on ZTnet and at the time of the release I was one of the few people who actually knew who the author was. Nintendo obviously blew some steam but what we found to work the best was to ignore them. If they served us we would do something but cease and desist letters are pretty much a scare tactic. Sam, My advice is just wait it out.
This is, of course, completely off-topic and therefore likely to be modded down, but I had a roommate once who watched the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the news for years before issuing this classic boner:
"Damn, the Israelis would have a lot less trouble with the Palestinians if they would just clean up all the loose rocks lying around town."
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
For example: if someone was standing outside of someone else's house and that first person was selling keys to that house without the owner's permission, then that would be illegal.
You're missing the point, and your example is not appropriate as a result. Your example above is an action, not a tool. Making and selling the keys would be illegal. The grinder to make the keys would not be.
Crime is about actions and intent, not physical objects.
-- Cerebus
You also need a refresher course on copyright protection law. And the DMCA. Are you really claiming that the quality reduction from compression in mpeg movies is sufficent change to qualify it as a non-infringing derivitive work? Or maybe you're just trolling, I dunno.
Constitutional protection or not, I don't believe guns should be outlawed. You gave no reasons for your assertion, so I'll just give the reasons for mine. As has been pointed out by others, we don't generally make an object illegal if it has legitimate legal uses. (There are counter examples, but I would argue that those things should not be outlawed...) Guns do have plenty of legal uses. Self defense is legal. Hunting is legal. Target competition is legal. What would your justification be for outlawing guns?
On the contrary. You have a right to make a backup of games. Games that you give to children are much more likely to be lost and broken. As a result, there is better reason to backup GBA games than most.
In addition, the primary purpose of this device is for software development (to load games that you've created, so they can be played on a GBA). This action is more of an anticompetitive behavior to prevent the creation of unauthorized games for the GBA, than it is about stopping piracy (consider the price of the blank flash cartridges).
I have never had a GBA, nor this device. From the actions taken by Nintendo, I have no interest in either. That doesn't make their action right.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
/. clearly needs a new symbol. Call it the "!Freedom" department.
The picture would be a copy of the Constitution with a pile of shit on top of it, just below someone wiping his ass with hundred dollar bills.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
I was getting all set to buy a Messiah modchip for my PS2 for my birthday. I have over 50 PSX games I'd like to back up. Also, my kids have begun playing my old PSX and I'd like them to use backups instead of original media.
There's also the question of purchasing legit imports, but I won't go there.
Now, thanks to Sony suing Channel Technologies (as well as the maker of the Neo4 chip), I can't get a modchip that will meet my needs without resoring to swap tricks or GameShark hacks. I'm sure as hell not going to open my PS2 for anything less.
I can see the lesser need for backups on a cart-based system. But there's still the dev side. I know homebrewers probably make up less than 5 percent of Zophar's market, but still. The FAL doesn't force anyone to trade ROMs.
GTRacer
- Anyone have a Messiah-chipped PS2 for sale?
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
...that someone might want to buy a video game for the GBA, load it onto his computer, and play it on his big monitor, with emulator features like saving and restoring multiple states at any time. Or to have a backup and working platform to show his kids 30 years later, long after his GBA is lost or broken.
And that's ignoring, for the moment, that an emulator is the cross-platform developer's #2 special-purpose tool, after his cross-compiler.
If they linked ROMZ sites, that would be boneheaded.
he's just going to ignore them for now.
He should not do this, this will only make the courts mad, because he is spitting in the face of the law. Instead, he should get a Lawyer to write a nice polite letter stating first, Nintendo has no right to demand nor confiscate the devices, only the Federal government can do so with the proper court order. Second, the devices are legal because they have at least one legal use, ie making legal backup copies of games, which is allowed under "Fair Use". The DMCA does not specificaly eliminate "Fair Use" (I could be wrong, maybe, it does specificaly eliminate "Fair Use"). This also provides Researchers a method of discovering new uses for the product, because new uses may have a greater benifit. Because this has not happened yet does not mean it is not possible, attempting to enforce the DMCA in this manner stifles creativity and inovation. Recently the RIAA has backed down from a similar case stating it was not the intent of the RIAA nor the DMCA to suppress research nor stifle inovation. The Research part of this maybe a stretch, but a good Lawyer could make it work.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Now the grinder is a different issue. If the grinder was being used to make illegal keys then owning it would also be illegal. This is completely tied to the actions of the owner, however, and has little to do with the tool itself.
Crime is mostly about actions and intent, but in some cases physical objects can be inferred as only having one realistic use and thus can be illegal to possess. We do start treading on thin ice with these sorts of distinctions but they are nonetheless valid.
Sapere aude!
IMHO, DMCA or not, these products only have one use (Anyone who says they're for making 'backups' can kiss my ass).
They're for use in Piracy, pure and simple - and in the end, Nintendo have the legal right to be paid for their intellectual property, like it or not.
You can try to look around this point all you like but in then end you've got to admit that. It's very convenient to try to look at this with rose-tinted glasses, I bet when most people are saying is "great, no more free gameboy games".
It's just a shame that a sensible legal test can't exist for this, rather than the DMCA.
They actually have a duty to their shareholders to do this.
I hate that phrase.
A company incorporated in the US and its officers have no such duty to their shareholders. They have the duty to serve the public good, in return for which the personal assets of the shareholders are exempted from being counted as corporate assets subject to seizure to settle debts.
That's it.
-- Cerebus
Hmmm, considering that an 'original' game is *cheaper* than a 'flashed' game (i.e. the flash cartridge costs much more than an original cartridge, unbelievably more if you count the reader) I fail to see your point.
It's much cheaper when my hypothetical kid loses an original cart than when they lose or break one of these flash carts + the reader...
Methinks the mirrors you're trying to climb on are a wee bit too slippery, I really fail to see how 99.9% of the people will use this device for anything else than playing 'backups' (as pirated games seem to always be called nowadays).
I really don't think that more than 0.1% of the buyers of this device will do any software development with it (yes, I'm jaded).
-- the cake is a lie
The difference between standing outside someone's house selling keys to the house and a device like Flash Advance is that there is no legitimate reason for somebody other than me (and those I specifically allow) to have access to keys to my house. The Flash Advance does have legitimate purposes. The DMCA should not keep me from being able to develop software for a device I own, regardless of whether that ability also allows me to copy copyrighted software (how long til we can expect MS to develop a filesystem that doesn't allow the user access to certain parts of the system, and only allows "authorized" developers to write software).
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I assume that since it is their product, the GBA, then they get to determine who is a developer, and who is not.
Regardless of being able to make ROM's, or anything else, it is in Nintendo's best interest to not have a bunch of crappy games floating around "for the GBA" that they did give permission for.
Also, it was determined in December that this item, the un-official developer kit for the GBA, was in violation of the DMCA, yet Nintendo is just now sending out cease and desist orders? Seems a litte slow, I would figure that they would just do a google search for the product in question with the word "buy" and that would get most of them.
Dear Mr Michaels,
Get a grip. This is just a letter. Letters cost about a dollar to reproduce and send. They are typically used as intimidation techniques by lawyers when they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
If they file, then it means they're a bit more serious, but not much. Again, these filing is cheap, and often gets people to do what lawyers want even though they really don't have the legal right to demand it.
This is what you should do. Send them back a nice letter stating that the DCMA doesn't apply because these devices are not being used "solely for copyright circumvention" - they are being used for hobby gaming. This does two things. First, it states your legal position; they cannot claim you ignored the letter. Second, and more importantly, you are signal your willingness to actually fight this bullshit.
Believe me when I say that Corporate lawyers strongly recommend against suing a "little guy" on anything but a clear-cut case. Even if they win, it can do havok with their P.R., and it will cost them way way more money to pursue than they ever could recover.
Remember, because this isn't a contractual issue so there is no "looser pays in a legal dispute" clause to deal with. If they actually seriously pursue litigation, they're on the hook for their own legal fees, which makes it not worth it even if they do win.
Disclaimer - I am Not a Lawyer; however, I have used their services from time to time.
Sophistry.
If you create plates from which counterfeit money can be printed, and call it "art", is that acceptable, or would you say "please, they're selling counterfeiting devices, not art, hang-em high".
You want to develop GBA games? I'm pretty sure Nintendo sells a developers kit. This guy wants to sell this device to teenagers across the country so they can "share" games. The law of supply and demand does not lie: there are more game players than developers, by several orders of magnitude. That is why a developers kit costs $K-bucks. This costs very little (I saw $144 somewhere above?). This is not a "developers" unit, it's a 31337 w4r3z d00d tool.
Everything a corporation does is not evil, and everything an individual does is pure.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
the packages come in from Asia labeled as "gift." the shipper applies that label to the document for shipping and customs. when i ordered mine, i didn't tell the shipper how to label it - they knew what it would take to get it past customs and did as such: item="gift", value="under $30 USD". i had no hand in the labeling.
also - i do not see on his sight where he talks about labeling used during shipping - provide that link. all i see is the letter from Nintendo.
thanks!
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
you would think, right? i have no idea. we wonder how this all works ourselves.
we have had 3 sent to our office, all from the same place in Hong Kong, all within the last 3 months. i would assume these places doing the shipping are sending hundreds daily through customs.
the hows and whys of customs inspections is something i would love to understand.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
I have every GBA currently released that's almost 278...I have not paid a dime for any of them directly.
I bought the GBA linker and now the bridge(for GBC and GB) which brings my total to over 500 games I didn't pay for!!!
I also develop games as well, so I am using it for some legal usage...
That is my point. While you have the right to make a backup, and there's a better reason than most to so so with this device, the primary purpose is software development.
One-off copies cost several times the price of an original using this. It's like using a CD burner to copy a $15 CD, if CD blanks cost $100. In my mind, this solidifies development as the only realistic use of this device.
Anyone interested in cheap mass produced copies (a "pirate") would just use a PROM burner instead, wouldn't they?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Fine selling the carts themselves would be a copyright violation if the carts were unlinensed...but how does that make selling the linker a copyright violation....
Sure the linker has very little value without the carts...and vice versa....but I can't see how the linker is the object in violation..it should be the flash carts becuase the cart design are the copyrighted works.
either way...do the flash advance carts have any particularly good use as a storage device...beyond gameboy advance rom creation? I take these things are just a repackaged form of compact flash...For general storage is a compact flash card reader and compact flash carts a better way to go.
Maybe they should redesign the linker to accept different flash cards and carts...so they could market the linker and the cards has being for general storage/backup purposes....Maybe NOA is upset because the company is making money specificaly and directly off NOA's brand...without licensing the use of the gameboy advanced trademark...and this is the biggest legal stick NOA can think of.
If the linker and the carts were marketed has general purpose storage....and the instructions didn't only specifically target gameboy advanced rom creation but was more about general usage for backup/restore.....then it might be much harder for NOA to make a fuss about it...
-jef
Dear Nintedo Lawyer Dude
Blow me !
PS- Please sue me, I will counter sue on anti competive grounds and Nintedo will finance my eary retirement.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Nintendo demands that you ... turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo.
What? Has Nintendo suddenly become part of US customs?!
Under copyright law, you can make backups. I guess it's the DMCA, because under DMCA, you can't circumvent any technical protection mechanisms (TPM). The question is -- are there copy protection measures here? Does failure to provide the necessary cables and software to do backups constitute a TPM under DMCA?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why? To make illegal copies? no. To bypass any copyright laws? no. Because I want to make my OWN GBA games. An emulator is fine for testing on your PC how the game is coming along but there comes a time when you need to test on hardware.
1. I'm not a big company so I'm not able to get an SDK kit from Nintendo
2. I couldn't afford it if I was able to
3. I don't want to make games for the hardware. Just as a hobby. At most for people to download and play... you know.. to give them something to do with the emulator besides illegal roms.
I think it is at least as likely that they are doing this because people could develop for the platform without going "through them", as it is that they would oppose this on any real "piracy" grounds, though I must admit to ignorance on their official stance on GBA development.
Myself, I decided to never touch their stuff after reading the classic paper The Expurgation of Maniac Mansion for the Nintendo Entertainment System.
Read it if you haven't already, it's hilarious.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Give me your computer and all blank CD-R media you currently own, or I will report you to the authorities for copyright violation.
Whoops, if I wasn't merely making a point, I would have just committed blackmail or extortion (depending on the relevant "authorities"). Pairing a demand with a threat is illegal by default.
I'm being trolled, but...
Guns may be used to maim/injure/kill in self-defense, which goes quite counter to the tone of your argument.
Guns are also used to procure inexpensive food in many areas. Unless you're a vegetarian, you have no moral superiority here (actually less IMO).
Don't throw statistics at me either, since personally I'm far from the norms. ;-)
Statistics are only relevant to large samples. When the sample involves people, the statistics may often change rapidly given education.
There is also an argument in that guns may be used for recreational purposes (target/competitive shooting). That also goes counter to your argument.
Finally, like it or not, proficiency with guns aids the national defense here in the US. Look at the history of the great snipers. Most were hunters.
There are many entirely ethical arguments in favor of private gun ownership.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
...stealing your property and putting you out of business. This usage of the term, "working with you" is trademarked by the Mafia. Perhaps they should be sued for trademark violation.
IIRC back when I owned nintendo games before I got scammed by sega, I noticed in the fine print that Nintendo claims you are not allowed to make backups of their software. I would imagin that this would persist, and they will of course argue in court that fair use backups aren't necessary due to the reliability of their cartriges.
I think it's a good fight to pick, but I wouldn't want my ass on the line. Maybe someone should quickly code up a free mp3 player, and visualization program for this thing. And viola, fair use.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
that there is some law that you are to properly label packages entering customs or risk some retribution. i have no idea. we kinda all worried when we ordered ours - who is at risk? the buyer? the shipper? the manufacturer?
i can only guess that US Customs is over-worked and under-staffed. i would also assume that the flow of goods through customs increases each year. kinda a frightening prospect.
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
An AC wrote:
;)
> Please give me one legit reason to use these devices that is believable
> other than pirating GBA games. You and I both know your reason will
> be complete BS.
One legit use? I can think of several:
1) Uploading games that you wrote. This is the purpose of the device according to the manufacturer's web site.
2) Backing up your saved game data (if this is illegal, then so are memory cards).
3) Backing up the games that you bought. Legal under pre-DMCA copyright laws. This would allow you to be able to continue playing your game, even after your little brother ran the cartridge through your little sister's EasyBake oven.
4) Playing a game that your friend wrote for the GBA using this device. With your friend's permission, of course, since they own copyright to the games they wrote.
> This isn't like MP3s where people can make backups
> of their music and move it around to different systems.
5) Writing an mp3 player (assuming the hardware would support one) on the GBA and playing mp3's ripped off the CD you just bought.
> This is to trade and pirate the software.
That would be use #6, the only one that is illegal. You have a similar mix of legal and illegal uses of a CD burner. So do you plan to run around to all the distributors of CD burners, slap them with the DMCA, and confiscate their products?
What ever happened to the good old days of "innocent until proven guilty" and using the police to enforce the law?
> Saying otherwise insults us all.
Well, if you are so worried about being insulted, why don't you register instead of posting as an "Anonymous Coward". Certainly that is more insulting than the truth.
(BTW, that's why I always write "An AC wrote:" instead of insulting the people I'm replying to.)
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have got to pay!
New Kirk calling Mothra, "We need you today!"
In a world where maiming/injuring/killing is A) necessary in cases of self defense and B) a favorite pastime of hunters everywhere (not to mention you don't maim/injure/kill shooting clays or targets), guns have perfectly legal uses, and that's what they're designed for. Why do you think they have a safety?
~ now you know
The "protective device" is actually the proprietary cartridge connection format that interfaces the GBA.
Stupid, I know, but that's what it is. Reverse engineering be damned...
.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Incorrect, DMCA refers to circumventing a protective device
Holy shit! You mean it's become illegal not to wear a condom during sex?!
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
If you use the pillow to deliberately kill a grandmother, yes, that pillow in that instance is illegal. The vague wording of the DMCA goes both ways.
The problem is that this site (and many others) make it fairly obvious that "this is a copier" and "we are going to copy illegal stuff with it". Very few, if any, do it for the joy of hacking. Most are just warez kiddies who love getting free software.
That said, in this instance the copier is illegal.
No wide posts here, either.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I issue a formal challenge to all slashdotters:
write an emulator which will run on the GBA while resident in one of these flash cartridges that will allow you to play NES or SNES roms on the GBA. I can't see why it couldn't be done. The processing power exceeds either of these systems, and the cartidges more than exceed the required space for any PC emulator and a handful of SNES ROMs.
of course, if anyone is successful, the GBA's fun potential will increase exponentially(GBAFUN2 = [GBAFUN1^#ofEMULATEDSYSTEMS] * #ofEMULATEDGAMES), so you'd better buy these cartridges up now because Nintendo of America REALLY won't be happy about that.
just a thought
lysergically yours
Either you are a troll, or you don't know the difference between an noun and a verb. No, the pillow is not illegal, no matter how I use it. It is the _action_ of murder that is illegal, regardless of the tool used.
Based on that logic, it seems every device is a violation of the DMCA. You are a violation cause I can store information in your brain. A pencil is too, because you can draw some words that express how to get around a "mechanism."
Extended futher, it seems every object is a violation of the DMCA. You could use hydrocholoric acid to modify the form of the plastic casing which would then allow you to COPY THE SIGNALS FROM THE GAMEBOY'S A & B BUTTONS, which would allow you to reverse-engineer some crappy software copy protection scheme!! But no, that would be a violation of Title 17, chapter 1, section 1201.
Secondly, the first amendement provides freedom of speech and the press. A disc burner is an instrument of the press. Therefore congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof of a CD burner.
Thirdly, the ninth amendment states that even though the Constitution enumerates certain rights, those rights are not the only rights you have, and that the constitution is not meant to destroy any other rights you have.
Got friends?
Nintendo of America Inc. (NOA) is providing this letter of notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, USC 17 1201(b) (DMCA) and the US Customs ruling dated December 20, 2001, regarding the import, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker. US Customs confirmed the Flash Advance Linker violates the DMCA and is subject to confiscation.
This notice is addressed to the agent designated by Win-Developer to receive notifications of claimed infringements, as reflected in the current records of the U.S. Copyright Office.
NOA has a good faith belief that your GBA rom collection and flash linker infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights in violation of section 1201(b) of the DMCA and subject to seizure under 19 USC 1595a(c)(2)(c) by US Customs.
The post describing your Flash Advance Linker was found at: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28286&thresho
Nintendo demands that you immediately cease the use of the Flash Advance Linker and turn it over to Nintendo.
The Flash Advance Linker appearing in your post has been identified by its title, description [and/or] depictions of associated artwork. Based on the information at its disposal on February 20, 2002, NOA believes that the statements in this notice are accurate and correctly describe the infringing nature and status of the infringing material.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nintendo of America Inc.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
...when you combine this with the description of Visoly's other Flash Advance products. It sure sounds from the visoly site's description of those products that they are marketing them for copying first, and developing second. The first paragraph of the Flash Advance description states: "Once you have sent games, demos or programs to it's memory using the Flash Advance Linker, it can simply be plugged into the Gameboy Advance and it will act like an original game -- there is 100% not any difference!" Not until the fourth paragraph do they chime in with: "The Flash Advance 64M is furthermore the perfect choice for any professional Gameboy Advance developers or even home developers" I know this doesn't invalidate the legitimate uses of the Linker, but it can't help their cause to have language in their other products' descriptions that seems to advocate piracy using the Linker.
If the grinder was being used to make illegal keys then owning it would also be illegal.
NO, it wouldn't be! The grinder would be SEIZED from the felon for using it illegally, but the grinder itself would NOT be illegal! In other words, we would not say, "You're using it for an illegal purpose. All grinders are now illegal. Round up any merchants selling grinders, seize their property and throw them in jail."
That's effectively what's happening here...
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Buy the gamecube, break it, take it back.
Do you really believe the Sony/Nintendo/RIAA theory that anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal? I'm really curious. From Pentium processers to bleach, I'll bet I can find an illegal use for just about anything.
Hmm, since Sony/Nintendo/RIAA have never sued the makers of Pentium processors or bleach, I guess they don't subscribe to the theory that "anything that could possibly be used in an illegal manner should itself be illegal" now do they?
And don't try to claim "that's different", unless you're willing to argue that copyright violation is so much worse than murder that it merits much more legislative and judicial intervention in peoples' daily lives.
The difference is that DMCA regulated items are made primarily for the purpose of committing illegal acts. Rocks are not.
I am not talking about 'mass produced copies', I'm talking about people buying a CD with all the Nintendo roms for 10 bucks and playing them to their heart's content (or downloading said roms for free off the net).
Please remember that (unless I'm really, really, really mistaken) these flash cards can of course be reprogrammed many times, they're more like a CDRW than a CDR in your example.
Industrial wholesale pirating is a completely different ball game of course...
-- the cake is a lie
That was on the message board.
Also on the message board is the statement that ZD didn't inport the flash linkers at all; they were bought from a US supplier. (I wanna know who that is!)
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Nintendo has ALWAYS raked in huge profits off their cartridge based systems. Back on the NES the only way to get cartridges made was to pay Nintendo to make them for you, and if they didn't like you for some reason, your cartridge shipment got limited, pushed back in the queue, etc.
This is also one of the big reasons the N64 was cartridge based...Nintendo figured that CDs wouldn't be able to bring in as much cash as cartridges that needed to be produced at Nintendo.
So the piracy thing bothers them, but not nearly as much as the fact that this product basically allow anyone who wants to go out and write their own GBA software without paying the money for a GBA dev kit, and the fact that they are really, really close to losing a big revenue stream less than a year into the GBA launch. Moral of the story...go buy one now. Nintendo's going to try and kill this now and forever.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
what the intended market for any product is. I can buy a gun quite easily and shoot anyone I please. I could buy a car and run over your dog. I might like it, and a lot of people might want to do it. That doesn't mean that is the 'intended market'. I am so sick of you control freaks telling everyone what they can and cannot do simply because there is the opportunity to do wrong. Shame on you.
Not sophistry, stupidity. If you counterfeit $20 bills, and it costs you $100 to make each one, you are a moron.
u =5 2F6286
x .h tml
From a quick look at Amazon, GBA games sell from $5 to $30. Copying products in this price range with this device doesn't appear to be cost effective. Why not pick up a PROM burner for about the same price:
http://www.newark.com/search/Description.jsp?sk
or even make one yourself:
http://home.quicknet.com.au/andrewm/eprom1/inde
Suitable EPROMS are under $5, which seems to make them much more economically feasible for copying for profit.
If you're talking about a couple of kids sharing games, I think they are more likely to simply exchange/trade cartridges than they are to drop $100-$200 so they can play one or two games. I'm no rocket scientist, but the economics don't make sense to me.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Then isn't the illegal portion of the situation you describe the $10 CD full of illegally duplicated copyrighted material, not the Flash Advance? From your own example, CD burners are not illegal, and no one is confiscating them. CDs full of copyright violations sold for profit are illegal, and they should be confiscated. There is a difference.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
You're making the argument that George Carlin makes in one of his standup routines: "They let people get on board planes without weapons. But what about a guy with really large hands? Couldn't he strangle a stewardess? Hell, he could do it one in each hand." Fact remains, though, using this analogy, that most people DON'T have really large hands, as most people don't make an effort to backup their software (especially game cartridges).
Further, the backing of game cartridges is a fairly limited argument anyway. Most people argue that software should be backed up because the original media is fragile -- game cartridges are not. In fact, I would venture to say that most people who buy game copiers (and RAM-based cartridges) are doing so to steal games.
Dear Sam Michaels:
a cc
How are you gentlemen?
Nintendo of America Inc. (NOA) is providing this letter of notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, USC 17 1201(b) (for great justice take off every zig) and the US Customs ruling dated December 20, 2001, regarding the import, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker. US Customs confirmed the Flash Advance Linker violates the DMCA and is subject to confiscation.
This notice is addressed to the agent designated by Zophar's Domain to receive notifications of claimed infringements, as reflected in the current records of the U.S. Copyright Office.
NOA has a good faith belief that someone set up us the bomb by distributing illegal imports of the Flash Advance Linker in violation of section 1201(b) of the DMCA and subject to seizure under 19 USC 1595a(c)(2)(c) by US Customs.
The e-commerce page offering the Flash Advance Linker for sale was found on your site at:
http://www.zophar.net/store/items.phtml?gba-
Nintendo demands that you immediately cease the importation, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker and all your base are belong to us
The Flash Advance Linker appearing on Zophar.net has been identified by its title, description [and/or] depictions of associated artwork. Based on the information at its disposal on February 19, 2002, NOA believes that the statements in this notice are accurate and correctly describe the infringing nature and status of the infringing material.
Should you have any questions, please move zig, move zig move zig at the following address, telephone and fax numbers, and/or e-mail address:
Nintendo of America Inc.
Attn: We get signal. What?
4820 Main screen turn on!
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone: 425-861-2187
Fax: 425-882-3585
E-mail: Noalegal@noa.nintendo.com
We look forward to working with you to immediately resolve this matter. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive, make your time.
Sincerely,
NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.
sig?
Actually, not. DMCA makes unauthorized stuff illegal. Presumable Nintendo would authorize themselves to have the objects :)
You probably should read the guy's site and learn all the facts before you flap your idiot gums.
The device allows you to dump the game ROMs to your computer, then write from the computer to a flash device.
If you're talking about a couple of kids sharing games, I think they are more likely to simply exchange/trade cartridges than they are to drop $100-$200 so they can play one or two games.
That is not the problem here. The problem is renting the GBA game from Blockbuster, dumping the ROM, then you have the game for the cost of the rental. It doesn't cost $100/game, it costs $144 for the device with a flash cart, and you can have any GBA game in the world forever for the cost of a rental.
I'm no rocket scientist, but the economics don't make sense to me.
You certainly aren't a rocket scientist. You aren't even a rocket scientist's gardener.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
So what you are saying is that you can take something that has a legitimate use, and use it illegally? My goodness, that is amazing.
Not to mention as new and improved as renting and copying a video (better yet, get them at your local library).
Better call the cops, I hear Sears is selling crowbars.
For the same reason that VCRs, EPROM burners, CD-R/RW, DVD-RW, ad nauseam, are not illegal, this should not be illegal.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Marijuana has medicinal value, but it's still illegal. THANK YOU.
Instead of trying to fault the point I'm making, try to understand it. It is up to a court of law to judge whether or not this is a tool of piracy or not, all I was saying was NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE. You may have noticed in the subject of my original post that I believe "Nintendo has a good case". I did not write my subject to say "Emulators are Illegal." Nor did I say "Everybody who uses an Emulator is a pirate."
Here's what a Nintendo Lawyer could say:
"Look, your honor, these guys have a link to an emulators site to play illegal images of copyrighted games. They also have patches available for download to fix some copyrighted games so they work on this system. Yet there are absolutely 0 links that talk about how to write your own software for it. There is no evidence that all this product does is play copyrighted games. Anybody who'd use it to actually write new apps for the GBA would have to really dig around the net to make it useful as a developer's tool. It is clearly marketed as a tool for playing copyrighted games "
I am in no position to say they are right or wrong, I was making a point that they do have a good argument. It is pretty embarrasing for this company to link to an emulators site because it will likely be used against them. You can make all the arguments that emus aren't necessarily used for piracy and that PocketPC's work this way and yadda yadda yadda. That's all for the judge to decide.
"Derp de derp."
With the DMCA and the extra-long copyright terms, you can guarantee that no surviving copies of a work will exist when the copyright term runs out. You can pretty much guarantee that you'll make your money on your work and that your work will never enter the public domain. Which is a good thing, if you're a big corporation, because that means that the public will no longer be able to get some pesky public domain work for their entertainment, even if they wanted to.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh damn. That's a bummer. When I saw that product I read the packaging and thought "ooo i could write my own little app or something for the GBA". I even thought about picking it up. The only reason I didn't was that I have no f'in clue how to engineer a GBA title. The package didn't say anything about coming with tools to write and compile code for it. The only real value it had was downloading pirated ROMS.
"Derp de derp."
Situation : Kid breaks into house, stealing my CDs. Since I don't want the kid to get in trouble, I tell him that I won't call the cops if he just gives me back the CDs, and pays for the window he broke.
Note, I am not saying what this guy is doing SHOULD be illegal, just that it IS under current rules or interpritation of rules. Under this umbrella of illegality, Nintendo's action is perfectly correct, and in fact rather nice.
Your primary use of the device may be for piracy, however it is not the primary purpose of the device. There are multiple legitimate uses for the device, pointed out by many /. posters.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
This was mentioned in the case of Sega vs. Accolade where Accolade used the 4 magic bytes to get the game to start up ('S', 'E', 'G', 'A' makes the ROM happy and displays the license screen.)
You'll also notice the GB(Orig/Pokt/Lite/Colr/Advc) has the "Nintendo(R)" logo placed/scrolling, and when you take out the cart, it turns black. (At least on a GBO/P/L/C) There are about 20 bytes in the ROM file (I know, I've worked with these suckers) that have that graphic in GBC packed tile format that is checked in ROM. (NoA has also sued a church group making edutainment for the GBC for infringement, NoA lost.) Also, if anyone remembers the Y2Kode demoscene compo, NoA sent a C+D to Lik-Sang/Y2Kode saying you're gonna get a court summons if ya don't take down the GBC ROMs. NoA has always been against the demoscene, and always will. I suggest a boycott.
--Joshua, swinging a GBC flashcart+XChanger (NoA sent a C+D to the people who made that to, the Bung device, they're dead too...) by the parallel cable
Why should Zophar's store owner turn in all his stock to Nintendo ? Gee, I should sue future shop over DVD burners because I 'represent' Sony and such burners can be used to copy games, maybe I could screw a few free DVDR drives out of the stunt.
I can see Nintendo trying to stop FlashAdvance sales and production, but that shouldn't be done at the expense of resellers who are in their perfectly legal right to sell these devices.
On the other hand, maybe Nintendo should stop and think. Yes, these things can be used for piracy, but they're rather expensive and I wouldn't buy such a device for my 11 year old nephew. It's much cheaper to buy games and trade them when you're done.
If these flash cards were really as popular and 'dangerous' as Nintendo claims, you'd see them in every store, online and real-life. The fact is: they're serving a niche market of rich pirates (?!) or amateur game developers. Just the thought of coding my own games for the GBA, then showing off to friends and inlaws makes my brain tingle. To me, it appears as though NOA is about to shoot itself in the foot, only this time it isn't Nintendo vs Sony or Sega, it's Nintendo vs the people. BAD bad idea.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I can't keep pounding this through your head. I'll try just once more, then I'm abandoning you as a lost cause.
I could give a shit what the site says. The site could say that it's for "easy oven cleaning". You think they're going to say on the site "Here is our Super-Piracy Device! Get Free Games! Woot!"?
There are reasons why developer-versions of consoles are so expensive: there are not that many developers in the world. Programming is hard. Programming games is very hard. Programming and getting a Nintendo license to distribute is very hard and very expensive.
This device costs $144. If he wants to make any money at all, he has to sell a lot of them. Is he going to sell to those few thousand developers? Sure--he'll sell to those and, maybe, make a few thousand dollars. What about the millions of broke, greedy, or broke and greedy teenagers? Don't you think he sees them as his primary market? Not developers, Just Plain Folks, who will be using it--not as a "development" device--but to get games for free.
Is the light dawning? I've explained it in a myriad of ways. One of them should be sinking in. If not, well... I hope your genes are recessive.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I would reply with a simple 2 word form letter...
phUcK aWF!
It's not like they could actually DO anything if you told them to roll their letter and insert it sideways into their lawyer's anal orifice.
-fc
. echo -e \\04 >
Thanks for the info, that's really useful to know about.
Certainly much more useful than calling me a moron because you don't understand what it is I said. *glares at HamNRye*
ooo This is a neat site. Gonna look at that tonight. Thanks again man!
"Derp de derp."
The problem here is that regardless of whether there are or are not subtantial non-infringing uses is immaterial unless you've got the budget and cajones to fight it out in court. If they take down their site then they protect themselves legally. If they don't then Nintendo can go right ahead and sue them, come what may.
If Nintendo were to lose said suit, the only harm to them is the legal cost which is a drop in the bucket for them. If the accused loses, then there's legal fees and whatever damages are awarded. Heck, even if the accused wins, that will be after years of protracted legal rangling at exhorbitant costs. So the DMCA completely slants the legal playing field to the accuser. If I'm NOA, or any other company, it is in my best interest to swamp people with cease and desist letters because the odds are nobody will try to fight me. If they refuse, then it's up to me whether I feel like going after them.
Smart companies will, of course, pick and choose their battles, to work out a strong court precedent. Why go after the New York Times for publishing something when you can go after a hacker magazine? Eventually a strong legal history develops that pretty much gives any device manufacturer carte blanche to declare how people are allowed to use their systems, regardless of copyright issues.
Seems to me that there needs to be some protections in the DMCA for false accusations. While a company has to swear they are not purgoring (sp?) themselves it's next to impossible to prove that they did. They can simply say that they thought it was a violation and turns out they were wrong. There needs to be some penalty for going after somebody, otherwise there's no reason not to try to go after everybody on a whim.
Oh, and as a side note, is it just me, or did the Customs officials just get handed a huge amount of power under our noses?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Redmond, WA 98052
What is it about Redmond that makes businesses up there be so unfriendly to consumers? (*ahem* Microsoft)
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The deed is not the device. No amount of wishing, hoping, threatening or praying can change that. Your argument has remained unaltered, and it was never convincing.
Tell me why the device cannot be used as part of an amateur development system. I've been a commercial programmer since 1978. Programming is not that hard, after the first couple of decades.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Nintendo demands that you immediately ... turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo.
... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
IANAL, but this is obviously an illegal demand:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
-- Fourth amemdment, US constitution
No person shall
-- Fifth amemdment, US constitution
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
The following is the letter that Sam Michaels is sending to Nintendo, copied from this message board post by Sam Michaels:
He also mentions in the post that he has been told by the manufacturer of the Linkers and a guy from Lik Sang to basically "tell them to kiss your ass and ignore it".
Have you ever read the DMCA? That's rhetorical, because you obviously have not.
You are mistaken.
Do you think they just pulled a law out of their ass that says "Breaking or circumventing encryption is illegal", and that's it? Wake up, cluebag. The DMCA is all about protecting copyright, not encryption schemes.
Except where it isn't. I refer any genuinely interested person to review the relevant statute, codified in Title 17 here, at section 1201, which bars circumvention of effective copyright protection systems and here, at section 1202, which bars messing with copyright management information.
Of course, since the author of the preceding uncivil posting claims to have carefully reviewed and read the DMCA, he would know that it provides no other relevant remedy meaningfully related to the subject of his posting. Reasonable people may decide for themselves which of the two posts, his and mine, more clearly addresses the merits; and in this case, why one of us posts as an Anonymous Coward, but the other does not.
I wonder if this guy crossed the legal limit.
Classifying it as a piracy site could be an issue, but the one I really wonder about is the very clear accusation that they offer emulators to get people to buy copiers. Of course, if it is more or less true then they may not have a case.... Of course, they may not have a case anyway - what do I know?
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
The deed is not the point. I submit that this device is no different than selling printing plates of US paper money. You have yet to address this.
Your argument has remained unaltered, and it was never convincing.
Fanatics are rarely convinced. They are only ignored or physically defeated. I don't expect this to be any different.
Tell me why the device cannot be used as part of an amateur development system.
Holy cow, are you thick. I never said it couldn't be a part of an amateur development system. I said that it isn't it's primary use. It can't be--there just flat out aren't enough developers to make a $144 developer device sufficiently profitable to make the effort.
I've been a commercial programmer since 1978. Programming is not that hard, after the first couple of decades.
<python type="monty">Well, I lived with my 14 brothers and sisters in a shoebox in the middle of the road! ("You had a shoebox?!?")</python>
I can believe it--you show the same obstinacy, pointless literalism, and tunnel vision of most programmers. Or, you're just a poor programmer--bad programming is indeed quite easy to do.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Support of the /. community? What support? Are you going to write him a cheque? Words of sympathy and outrage are not going to pay his legal bills and will not 'support' him.
ZD didn't inport the flash linkers at all; they were bought from a US supplier. (I wanna know who that is!)
That would be Visoly Inc
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yep, I see it now. Didn't seem all that obvious tho. I appreciate you pointing that out.
"Were your eyes seized for contravening the DMCA?"
I'm NOT PRO DMCA. Why's everybody assume I'm on their side?
What part of 'NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE' didn't anybody read? Why does everybody read it as "Nintendo's clearly in the right." or "Emulation is Illegal" or "Every single person in the world who uses an EMU is commiting a crime" or "There is no non-pirate use for the system" or "It should be banned for sale"? I never said ANY of that?
This is getting really pathetic. Obviously the guy who modded me up understood I had a point, but a bunch of people who responded to this made a worst case bastardization of what I said.
Let me restate it... AGAIN...
If/When this goes to court, Nintendo's case could go something like:
"You honor, this site clearly intended to sell a device that allows people to play GBA games illegally. Look at their site! They immediately link to several emulators sites. "
Now I made the mistake of thinking that everybody knew that Nintendo assumes Emus are simply there for piracy. That's the way all these companies act. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world uses the EMU for legitimate uses, that's Nintendo's view. That's Sony's View. That's all major game company's views. I thought people would understand this instinctively, but instead I was interpreted as a pro DMCA, EMU hating bastard. Personally, I think people were so hyped about defending their precius Emu's, that they didn't stop and think what I meant is that a lawyer would say that. Hence the subject "Nintendo has a good case."
"Your honor, they even have patches to run copyrighted games on this product."
They do. Right under 'software'. They have no mention of SDK's here (yes they do have it under the emulator's page, and I appreciate that being brought up.) , but you'd think that if it was a developer's tool, it'd do SOMETHING here to show itself as a tool. But it really doesn't. I'm sorry, it doesn't. It does NOT. And a Laywer for Nintendo is going to say that.
In any case, I'm ONLY talking about WHAT THE LAWYER WOULD SAY. -- see that? See? Is that so hard to understand? Do you get it now? Huh? If not, reread the beginning of this paragraph again. Heck, do it anyway. Nobody else seems to stick this point. Well I want you to stick this point because if you dont, you'll develop the idea that I am on Nintendo's side. If you think Im anti-Emu, pro DMCA, or even against this company making this product, then don't bother replying. My response will immediately be "Fuck you" followed by "you didn't read what I said. Reread it and leave me alone."
It is really frustrating that I tried to provide an insight that nobody has brought up before. I suppose I could have made it clearer. But I'm still surprised that everybody who responded wildly misinterpreted me. I can understand the 'not everybody uses emu's are doing so illegally', but not the 'you are a moron', or the 'you seem to be in love with the DMCA'. I tried to explain that I never said the Emus were illegal, Nintendo thinks they're piracy tools. And to a degree, they'd be right. There's a huge area of the net dedicted to illegally obtained roms. By associating this product with that community, they never ever had a chance at getting on Nintendo's good side. I could have clarified that a bit early on, I regret that I didn't.
Oh well. This is the last I'm saying on this subject. If you still think that I'm a Pro-DMCA whatever, then I suggest you take a look at my last 20 or so posts flaming the RIAA for their lousy business practices. Then, if you still think I'm a pro DMCA advocate, or an anti-EMU person, then all I have to say is "Fuck You."
"Derp de derp."
Physical things is the realm of patents, and Nintendo may or may not have patents on the interface to their cartridges.
There is no patent on the GBA cart edge connector protocol. If there were a patent, the Intellivision cart edge interface would be prior art, as the primary difference between GBA cart and legacy GB carts is the fact that like an Intellivision cart, a GBA cart has a multiplexed address and data bus.
Will I retire or break 10K?
the proprietary arrangement of pins (probably patented) on the cartridge interface can easily be considered copyright protection mechanism, or even an encryption scheme. Counting them (and of course using a voltmeter to find out which is which) is obviously a circumvention technique.
Yes, but the DMCA makes some specific exceptions to its ban on circumventing copy protection. Reverse engineering for interoperability is one of them (17 USC 1201(f)).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Distributing copies of the game is clearly copyright infringement.
Not if the game has been released as free software (or even free as in beer). Nintendo's titles aren't free, but mine are. I put my proofs of concept and short utilities under the Expat license and my full games under the GNU GPL. It's only copyright infringement to redistribute binaries of GPL'd software if you neglect make an offer to distribute machine-readable source code at cost.
Developing and using free software constitutes a substantial non-infringing use of the Visoly Flash Advance Pro cartridges.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The problem is that this site (and many others) make it fairly obvious that "this is a copier" and "we are going to copy illegal stuff with it".
The manufacturer's web page clearly states that "The Flash Advance 256M is furthermore the perfect choice for any professional Gameboy Advance developers or even home developers - Create your own games using your PC (free software is available) and simply use the Flash Advance 256M to show your game/demo to friends or test it on real Hardware." Heck, every single page links to gbadev.org (a homebrew site).
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's the way many of the game development companies are developing their games- targeting to the GBA itself and using a Visoly flash cartrige. Cheaper than Nintendo's answer and attainable for garage game and demo developers.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
NanoGator: "I'm NOT PRO DMCA. Why's everybody assume I'm on their side?"
:)
Chill. I wasn't assuming that - just making a DMCA-related quip, this being a DMCA-related thread, and eyes being perfect devices for recording copyrighted material for later mental playback.
NanoGator: "Look at their site! They immediately link to several emulators sites."
Now it's my turn to be blind - the only link to an 'emulator' site (GBAEMU.com) is actually a dev site as well - the top news article today is about the release of a new version of another GBA SDK.
Other than that, there's no mention of emulators at all, except in the bar at the top which is a description of the unit itself, not any software emulation.
The only software on the site is for the hardware they're selling itself, and the software patches for games allow it to be used for yet another purpose which either *is* legal or *should* be - combining multiple games to a single cartridge so that you only need to carry one around with you. Pirates wouldn't need the patches - they'd just download pre-patched versions of the games from their Warez sites.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I stand corrected. Thank you for being civil. :)
I still think Nintendo's Lawyer would put that spin on it, but now it seems that the Flash Linker site has a defense.
"Derp de derp."
No, US Customs has become part of Nintendo.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!