Slashdot Mirror
UK Courts Rule Nintendo DS R4 Cards Illegal
CheShACat writes "A UK high court ruled today that R4 cards for the Nintendo DS are illegal, finding two vendors guilty of selling 'game copiers.' The ruling by Justice Floyd is quoted as saying, 'The economic effect on Nintendo of the trade in these devices is substantial as each accused device can store and play copies of many Nintendo DS games [...] The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence.' No word in the article as to what law in particular they were found to have broken, nor of the penalty the vendors are facing, but this looks like bad news for all kinds of hardware mod, on any platform, that would enable homebrew users to bypass vendor locks."
Nintendo won a related lawsuit in the Netherlands recently, in addition to the one in Australia earlier this year.
My baseball bat is a murder weapon. The fact that I can use it to play baseball is not a defense.
Guns for hunting/murder.
Recording devices for reminders/spying.
Tacos for eating/poison delivery.
>>>'The economic effect on Nintendo of the trade in these devices is substantial as each accused device can store and play copies of many Nintendo DS games [...] The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence.'
>>>
And then a few weeks later, other UK judges outlawed the use of VHS tapes, DVD-Rs, and MP3 recorders, for the same reason that these blanks can be used to copy movies and songs.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1932.html
The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence
Right in the summary. They know, they just don't care.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
One big feature of jailbreaking iPhones is that you can install apps on your iPhone in a similar manner that you could install NDS games on an R4. Does this also mean that jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal there, too? It should be noted that a major feature of the R4s, and similar devices, was that you can run homebrew on your NDS, which I have. There's some decent homebrew (not that great of a selection, but still some good stuff) available, such as the (excellent) roguelike game POWDER.
So I guess this makes all optical drives illegal too then.
Well, they haven't, but they may as well do it.
...that rampant piracy has diminished the useful and legitimate purposes of these devices to such a degree that they must be criminalized. I grew up in an era where "homebrew" was the only type of gaming there was. One could say that it actually created the game industry.
But the game industry has grown up now into serious business, and while landing a couple of pasted-together white blocks onto a platform of larger white blocks used to be great fun, I don't think anybody wants to give up Mario 25 and Zelda 21 just yet.
Is that the price to be paid in a world where these devices are permitted to exist? A better question, perhaps, is do you want to take that chance?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
It gets better.
Now that the UK has banned guns, they are starting to go after knives.
They don't seem to be content with fighting knives, they want to go after kitchen knives too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Plaintiffs and defendants should just fax the judge their financial records for the last year.
Whoever has the most money wins the case.
That way, we could save taxpayer money and the verdicts would invariably come out the same way as they would have through trial.
A High Court is not the highest court in the UK, that would be the Supreme Court, I believe, although I'm not a lawyer.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "It's not really making piracy *more illegal* is it?". Things can't really be more or less illegal, just more or less severely punished, but I don't think this ruling is about piracy as such, only things that could be used _for_ piracy.
What about the tons of other flash card carts for the DS? Why single out only the R4? I've had one in my DS for a few years now (bought one when they first came out) and it's still running strong. I've done all kinds of things with it too, ebooks, mp3, etc. Of course you can play pirated games but no one forces you to commit infringement and put pirated games on it. There's plenty of legal homebrew. So because the ability to use a device for piracy is the court going to make computers, DVD players, CD players, etc. illegal as well?
With your wallet.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Do you seriously think most people buy R4s for homebrew? That's like saying most people use torrents to get Linux ISOs.
You'd have a point if 99% of people used knives to murder and 1% used them to cook.
Up until last year the house of lords was the highest you could go.
(only just found out that that had changed.)
Playing Devil's advocate... poorly mind you but I'll try... why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal you can get to equal absurdities (that dirty bomb in my garage, I'm using it for a doorstop). We really can't look at this in binary good bad mode. Basically every device can put to neutral or good use, and bad use, so that you can potentially use it legitimately in itself isn't a real defense.
Seems to me that a lot of the hardware used by Nintendo to make legal games could also in theory be used to make illegal games. Therefore that hardware is illegal!
I actually have an R4RS that I bought a couple years back for homebrew development/hacking (but, in the end, the wifi wasn't good enough), but to be perfectly honest, the market for these really is 99%+ for piracy.
Its not that they don't care about noninfringing usage, the court just realized that the noninfringing usage is almost irrelevantly small.
Test your net with Netalyzr
"What about leaving that shiny things on the shelf and use your time for something more constructive?"
But want Shiny on MY terms! Can't vote with my wallet or won't HAVE shiny! Shiny = constructive. Mmmm....corporate cawk, so tasty.
Did I miss anything? :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I had a CycloDS for my DS, but your DSi's firmware blocked it from working. This page reminded me to look, and sure enough, I can now buy a nice Acekard 2i for like $15 and/or a Supercrad DStwo for about $35 that does things your console should do natively (such as GBA and SNES emulation), both of which use the same 16 GB Micro SDHC card that my CycloDS uses, all of which will work with my nice Nintendo DSiXL.
Of course, since I own physical copies of all the games I put on my flash cart, it's all ethically sound, if not legally unassailable. Fortunately for me, I am much more concerned with living ethically, if not legally, especially when in regards to stupid, anti-consumer laws like the ones that would outlaw this sort of thing. Although Nintendo might be screwed even in that case, because "Jailbreaking" a mobile device is now legal in the US. Since my DS is a mobile device, and the Acekard / DStwo are methods of "jailbreaking," -- i.e., running unapproved software -- well, seems to me the much loved DMCA that Nintendo would no doubt use to shut these things down in the US... wouldn't actually shut them down.
So thank you, Nintendo. Thank you for reminding me to look for a DSi compatible flash cart, and reminding me I need to do my part to support small development studios like the Supercard and Acekard teams.
because you can use something else as a doorstop. Can you use anything else to run homebrew?
Anyway, Auntie says that HMRC have siezed 165,000 of these things, that's a sizeable market. Hopefully pissing off that many ordinary consumers of Nintendo products (don't forget, all those people will have bought DSs) will hopefully hit them where it hurts.
FGD 135
the name and location have changed. The actual judges are the same. Basically, it was an enormously expensive re-branding exercise.
FGD 135
Basically every device can BE VIRTUOUS or it's exact opposite, so that you can potentially use it legitimately in itself isn't a real defense.
Laws aren't smart or flexible enough to deal with virtue. For example, I just heard on the radio last night some dude who was arrested for "child endangerment." The reason: he saw a fight between 2 kids and broke it up. Was arrested and charged with that. His background: student body president while in HS, went to chico and graduated, went to be president of some school association and broke up a fight between his 2 students.
He asked: "Why is it that I am charged with child endangerment while those who were spectators or the others who recorded the fight weren't?" The council member said "we'll look into your case and review if any policy/rule/law wasn't followed appropriately. That's what happens when you have virtue in the legal system.
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Those of you silly enough to argue that living is infringement failed to read further into the article that says that bypassing a copy protection device is illegal. Even if the bypassing device has legitimate uses.
Sound familiar? It's like the DMCA, though the DMCA was updated earlier this week with a ruling that said that no longer applied for fair use (which still blocks space shifting, but allows the formerly illegal mashups from DVDs and Blu-Rays, short clips etc.).
So jailbreaking is still illegal in the UK, you cannot pick DRM locks, and you cannot bypass copy protections that may be present for whatever reason.
Actually, I bought an R4 for homebrew. There are a lot of simple games and applications like Colors! that easily make the cost worthwhile.
No! It isn't! Your a retard for saying so.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I'd be interested in a link to that story. Sounds interesting.
I just sent my DSi in for a warranty repair and left my iTouch2 Card in it... thankfully it was returned with no hassle (along with the offending microSD card) I'm a bit surprised at that, considering they could have sent a letter saying they confiscated "a device for piracy."
Oh AC, I wish I knew who you were! We're very alike, you and I!
Growing up, I loved music - still do. I am old enough to remember 8 tracks, but never bought one. Scratching on a record player, that even had a cassette player that RECORDED! Eventually, when I came of age to work and spend foolishly all of my money on music, I still have a case logic case full of 'original' CDs. Yes, that's over 200 Compact Audio Discs that cost over $20. The most expensive was my Grover Washing Jr. Mister Magic album that has 4 tracks. Yes, 4 tracks and over $30 (it was very hard to find, you see, there was no inet at that time like we know it today).
Loving music, as much as I did/do, I've been playing musical instruments a long time. One of them a guitar. So on one afternoon after school, during my mini rock concert for my neighbors, my Metallica Master of Puppets CD cracked in half after my set. What was I to do? Go and buy another $20 CD? I still dealt with tapes, but preferred CDs. Buying another CD was out of the question because money was now diverted to my car. Napster was starting to get into the news, but I wasn't in my 'computer age' yet, so my 486 wasn't up to do much for me.
The fair question of why do I have to buy something I already own came into existence then. When music companies say that you don't own the music, you license it on a per disc/tape/media basis. So 2 CDs are 2 licenses, not one, thus they don't owe you jack.
So now my collection sits cozy in its safe case, never worrying about heat in a car, pressure in a bag, strangers dirty fingers or even sand from the beach. This is the only way to fly!
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
This doesn't seem like flamebait. he actually has a point, however badly worded. hackers should start thinking about an open standard.
If there's a specific reason for this not to be a valid idea, let us know, but don't just call him flamebait.
new sig
*FACEPALM* Pt. 2
... and we need to get rid of those pesky ipods! They're a way for people to steal music SO EASILY! Just look at them! They're 'ease of use' make it easy to load pirated music. They're 'trendy styling' puts this powerful ability in a lot of peoples hands! The only thing that keeps people from stealing food from our mouths is they're honesty, and honestly, we know they aren't all that honest, honest!
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
As I understand it, there's a movement to ban any knife with a point, to reduce stabbings. Because banning tool #1 meant that people intent on violence switched to tool #2, banning tool #2 is sure to work this time! (What's that definition of insanty again?)
It's at least hard to make a gun in your garage. But adding a point to a knife? Only the law will be pointless.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Next they'll come after pointed sticks.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
UK High Court
The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence.
US Supreme Court in Sony vs. Universal:
On the question of whether Sony could be described as "contributing" to copyright infringement, the Court stated:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses....
It's interesting that the two courts took diametrically opposed positions on this subject. Of course, Congress pretty well neutered that decision with a succession of purchased laws culminating in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but that was one case where the Supremes ultimately got it right.
And then, after all the hate and discontent they raised over the advent of the VCR, the movie industry went on to rake in billions selling VHS movies on writeable media played back on the previously-vilified Video Cassette Recorder. Money they would never have seen had the hardware companies not been free to develop and market something new. That was not a surprising attitude, though: the content cartels have always been about maintaining the status quo, and can't quite seem to wrap their heads around the fact that change can make money. But that would require them to actually think, and maybe do a little innovating of their own. But history has demonstrated conclusively that they don't know how to do that.
Anyone remember Jack Valenti's impassioned monologue about how the VCR would "destroy the industry"? Yeah. He was spot on with that one, wasn't he. This is also the guy who said, "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Right on, Jack. Point is, these are people who don't have anything on their minds but control, control and more control. It's not even about the money, it's about control. They've controlled matters so well, in fact, that I won't purchase a game console. I don't like who I'd have to thank for it, and I don't like their business models, and I don't like the fact that the machine isn't really mine. You want to lease the box to me, that would be different. But they don't: they want me to pay cold hard cash for the illusion of ownership (ha, kind of like buying a house, when you think about it.)
Fact is, the content industries are mostly led by short-sighted fools. At some point, their stockholders are going to have to rise up and slay them, because they're throwing money away by not going with the flow, by not learning from history and their own mistakes, by being greedy to the point of sociopathy.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That seems doubtful. If this truly is the easiest way to carry multiple games around without having to carry around physical copies of each one, then it seems likely that legitimate use is not only significant, but is probably in the majority.
And this, folks is one of the big reasons why iPhone and iPod Touch are tearing so badly into Nintendo's portable gaming sales. The more you tIghten your grip, Nintendo, the more users will slip through your fingers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
sounds like a easy dos attack! I hope it's a easy reset.
Dunno why you're devil's advocating to me, since I was just pointing out that his statement was already covered, but, eh, why not give you my take (using illegal and infringing interchangeably, since I'm talking generically)...
I think a device should be judged based on a couple factors:
1. Possible uses.
2. Predominate uses.
3. Harm to people from allowing illegal uses.
4. Harm to people from removing device from circulation completely.
Yes, this actually requires people to think, and not have cut and dried answers, but I think it's a fair way to evaluate something.
If a device has 5,000 uses, good for it (1), but then everyone always just uses the two illegal uses (2), then you can judge the device as "bad," and get rid of it. If, however, it has two uses, and it's split 50/50 between illegal and legal uses, then you need to use tests 3 and 4. Say, your bomb doorstop. People would be killed if you, or someone you know, decided to set it off. That's a fairly massive amount of harm, and so your legal use doesn't outweigh the need to keep something like that safely locked away. Then you have test 4. Say a small group of people started using pacemakers to high-jack planes. Removing pacemakers from the market entirely just is not feasible. It would be incumbent upon airlines to secure planes against that interference.
Of course, these are extreme examples, and where lines are drawn will be different with different products. Thus, arguing non-infringing use as a defence would be arguing that your personal gain, and the gain of others using it in your fashion, is greater than the loss suffered by allowing the illegal use to continue. In this case, it was decided that more people are using R4 cards in an illegal/infringing manner than are using it for legitimate uses, and the removal of the legitimate uses isn't doing any material harm to homebrewers beyond not being able to do homebrew, which Nintendo doesn't allow on their consoles any way, thus placing Nintendo in the same camp as Apple with jailbreaking, et al.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Yeah, noticed that after posting. For some reason the parent wasn't displaying for me so got the context of your post a bit off. Sorry about that. And I agree on your factors there.
Next they'll come after pointed sticks.
Are you insane?! How can you possibly think that they would go after pointed sticks next?! Do you even know how much fresh fruit the UK imports?!!
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
A Grandmother discovered a secret way of getting Nintendo games to work using this one wierd tip....... buy them!
How can you have a knife without a point? A Xena Chachram?
A knife with a rounded end can still be used in the kitchen, or so the argument goes. Also, pizza knives (though only Xena can cut a pizza while it's being tossed in the air).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> A knife with a rounded end can still be used in the kitchen, or so the argument goes.
This sounds like the guy from New York that wanted to ban salt.
The point on the edge of a chef's knife is a pivot point. Rounding it off would kill much of the usefulness of the knife.
Of course after they successfully go after the jabby sharp point, they will follow up with the rest of the blade.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Please note that I only know the specifics of US law, your kilometerage may vary in the territory of the Queen.
why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal...
Nobody has specifically made R4 cards (or writable DVDs and CDs, or VHS and Betamax tapes) illegal. When home recordings first became possible, movie makers were worried that VCRs would destroy their market, and sued based on the idea that VCR manufacturers were making equipment that was meant to help people make copies infringing on their copyrights, and thus they were liable for part of the damages. Courts have generally found that something "need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses" in order to avoid liability. Apparently this decision was a departure from that.
It would be similar to saying you can't sue a knife maker after getting stabbed because knives have legitimate nonharmful uses, but when I get shot I can get money from the gun manufacturer. Now if legislation was passed specifically banning guns, the legal arguments would be much different.
I would like to know what the legal reasoning is: did the judge find a substantial legal difference between R4s and VHS tapes, or is it based on the fact that R4s are much less likely to be used legitimately, or (most likely) is the judge just not tech-savvy enough to make a good comparison?
The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence.
Some real world counter examples:
What about the tons of other flash card carts for the DS? Why single out only the R4?
The article mentions every SLOT-1 card I could think of: "As well as the R4 DS, the ruling covers the following: M3 DS, DS One Supercard, DSTT, DS Linker, Acekard, CycloDS Evolution, N5, and EZ."
Can you use anything else to run homebrew?
Yes. You can use a Windows Mobile 6 PDA, or an Android device (as long as it isn't sold by AT&T), or a Pandora, just not a DS.
Are any of the binary compatible with the DS?
No. But as ESR wrote in "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way":
What do you need binary compatibility with the DS for? Is it just that you want to be able to run homebrew apps and commercial DS games without carrying two devices?
I understand that in many countries it is now illegal to distribute a device that circumvents a copy-protection mechanism, but where are the alleged victims here ? The article and the case seem to revolve around Nintendo, but they're just supplying the platform aren't they ?? They don't own the copyrights that are being infringed as, surely, they belong to the games manufacturers - who appear to be absent...
Yeah, but now when you find someone with a pointed knife, you can book them before they stab someone.
Not saying I agree, but that's the logic.
Anyway, Auntie says that HMRC have siezed 165,000 of these things, that's a sizeable market. Hopefully pissing off that many ordinary consumers of Nintendo products (don't forget, all those people will have bought DSs) will hopefully hit them where it hurts.
Or not.
According to GfK-ChartTrack data for sales up to June 27th, 2009, DS enjoys the biggest installed base with 9.1 million, up 2.7 million from the same period a year before. In addition, 300,000 DSi consoles have been sold since launch. Wii follows on 5.4 million - up 2.3 million on its installed base in June 2008.
Elsewhere, Xbox 360 enjoys a 3.9 million installed base - up 1.7 million in the last 12 months.
PS3 sits on 2.2 million - up 900,000 units from June last year. UK console installed base tops 24m
That would put the market for HMRC at 2% of DS players in 2009 and probably more like 1% in 2010 - and it is a market that Nintendo has no interest in serving.
You could use your hands to punch someone, or commit various other types of crimes... Better have them removed.
You could use your penis to commit rape...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
My baseball bat is a murder weapon. The fact that I can use it to play baseball is not a defense.
There is absolutely no defense if your baseball bat is a murder weapon. Now if it were only a potential murder weapon.....
I couldn't use a rounded-end knife in the kitchen. There's a reason chef's knives have a point.
Try dicing an onion using a rounded end. Try finely chopping herbs. Try just about anything, in fact. Rounded ends are fine on knives used for buttering bread or pallette knives for cakes, useless for everything else.
The Australian suit doesn't count - it was settled with consent orders. In a consent order the parties agree between themselves what the order will be and the court makes it.
Damm I better sell all my knives and buy a new set of screw drivers for stabbing people instead.
Wanting strangers of unknown sanity carrying a weapon that can kill you almost instantly from many metres away? Sounds pretty insane to me!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence
Right in the summary. They know, they just don't care.
The most worrying impact of the rise of the blog, I've long thought, is the idea that a person is under no obligation to check whether something is true before they republish it. This goes doubly for the Slashdot editors, who should have checked that the summary was accurate, but it also goes for you.
In this case the quotation has been taken from its context and truncated, with no indication that any alteration has been made, in order to change the meaning of the judge's statement. The full quotation reads:
"The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence, provided one of the conditions in section 296ZD(1)(b) (considered below) is satisfied".
Section 296ZD of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2003 makes a defendant liable as a copyright infringer if he produces or markets a device which has for its only or primary purpose, or has only limited commercial application other than, the removal of "effective technological measures [that] have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program".
It is important also to note that the judge, when explaining why this case did not require a trial, considered the economic impact on the claimant. Had the defendant, in fact, been creating devices to play homebrew games they would, presumably, have challenged this point. Moreover, since the defendants specifically marketed their products based on the ability to download and play hundreds of official DS games it would be farcical to pretend that homebrew was anything other than an excuse to them: they were simply seeking to obtain a commercial advantage by helping people to infringe on Nintendo's copyright.
It is worth also noting that the following section of the 2003 act specifically provides for circumvention of technological measures in order to carry out "permitted acts". The fact that the defendants at no point made use of this section is further proof of the fact that copyright infringement, not the facilitation of homebrew, was their primary motive.
How can it be legal to gaol break an iPhone (new DMCA exemption) but not a games-console? The rationale for the iPhone was that the manufacturer should not stop you installing unapproved software, however the locks on a game console serve exactly the same purpose (for example NDS Homebrew).
Courts have generally found that something "need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses" in order to avoid liability. Apparently this decision was a departure from that.
I don't think it is a departure at all - note the "substantial" term in your quote. What counts as "substantial"? 1% of use? 5% of use? 25%?
The problem is that the "home brew" argument being statistically insignificant against unlawful use has long been an open secret even here on Slashdot. Does it count as a "substantial non-infringing use"? In all probability, no.
I don't ever use the tip of my knife when cutting an onion - I use a very sharp knife, and I slice. Similarly when chopping herbs, I use a curved rocking blade with two handles - in all cases I get very nice results.
I worked as a butcher for several years, and one of the things I learned there is that stabbing your item in any way for any reason leads to more severe wounds than slicing if something should go wrong. I never stab, I always slice.
I'd agree in that I never stab anything either. I have three knives I use in the kitchen - a 10" chef's knife, a 3 inch paring knife and a 14" one for carving. The chef's knife does most of the work. All are *very* sharp, I'm fastidious about this.
Dicing an onion uses a particular technique of taking half an onion, making horizontal cuts almost all the way through, then vertical cuts almost all the way through (for which you need a pointed knife as you need the cutting surface to stop suddenly rather than curve away) and then finally 90 degree vertical slices to give you diced onion.
Can't imagine doing this with a sharp pallette knife.
Similarly whilst a curved rocking blade is great I use my chef's knife. Hold point down on block and use as pivot whilst rear of blade goes up and down to chop. Again, with a rounded end it's not going to pivot.
Making an incision in a chicken breast to stuff it with something would be similarly tricky with a rounded knife, I'd imagine.
The thing is, if Nintendo don't want you to do something with their product, that's up to them, as long as it still works for the purpose it was designed for.
The answer is not to support Nintendo by using their hardware, then hopefully a competitor will come along who is more agreeable to homebrew.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I assume there is some officially approved route to publishing Nintendo DS games, why not follow that?
If it is too expensive, why not develop your game on another platform?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But you would have to deliberately make the knife pointy again, so if you wee caught carrying in public you couldn't use the "I was just on my way to my dear old mum's to slice some carrots for her" defence.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
In the Uk extreme right wing conservatives are pretty much the same thing as fascists.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
'"The mere fact that the device can be used for a non-infringing purpose is not a defence," read the ruling by Justice Floyd' Umm, yes, in the UK, it is Video recorders were allowed to be sold, despite the fact that they allowed for illegal sharing of recorded broadcasts precisely because they could be used for a non-infringing purpose Nintendo should lose on appeal
I would have never bought as DS if it wasn't for the R4. If they would sell the games on much smaller cartridges I might use them. But at that size it's such a hassle to carry multiple games around. I probably would not like a lot of smaller cartridges either because I would lose them ;). Mutliple games on a SD card is just the perfect way of storing a lot games.
I remember in high school, all the kids who thought the were hardcore would take shop class, and grind screwdrivers into points.
What can we go after once screwdrivers are off the streets?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I dont want to get stopped in the street on suspicions of owning an R4
(remembers when copyright was a civil matter)
supply - as far as I can tell possession is still legal although sale in the UK isn't. Of course, there's nothing stopping me importing from another EU country where they are still legal. Free movement of goods and all that.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
It's already illegal to carry a knife of any nontrivial size in most places. This just makes it illegal to have in your kitchen as well.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Every day when I drive to and from work I'm surrounded by people who can kill or severely injure with the weapons they are holding. Some of them are clearly crazy! Somehow I'm not dead yet.
Perhaps you missed the point (so to speak) that England did the experiment. Banning guns did not reduce the danger of being assaulted by a thug with a weapon, it merely made it impossible for the weak to defend themselves when it happens. This isn't a theoretical discussion.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There is another great benefit that I haven't heard mentioned yet: I was on a 5 hour flight last week, and it was VERY convenient to take the DS, with the ezFlash card in it, and be able to play a variety of different titles on a whim. No carrying extra game cards, no fiddling with cases, everything just contained in one unit. Very convenient, and I would hope legal, if you own the games that you pack onto your SD card!
What counts as "substantial"? 1% of use? 5% of use? 25%?
It probably isn't a percentage of use, but rather whether or not there are similar alternatives. The courts have found that people have a fair-use right to time-shift content and there is no other way to do this other than recording it. And you can't take away one person's fair-use right in an effort to protect another person's copyright.
Does it count as a "substantial non-infringing use"? In all probability, no.
Are there any other ways to make DS applications? If not, they at least have an argument. If they had followed the same logic, the right to be an independent developer would outweigh the right to block people from making illegitimate copies.
Knuckles! We can surgically remove every male infant's knuckles at birth to render them inefficient at striking things or other people with their fists.
While we're at it elbow and knee reduction surgery could be done to soften the blows from those parts of the body. Maybe we could add in squishy silicone implants and make it a crime to remove them.
Of course we better make sure that all of those date-rape drugs and knives and guns are off the market, because even a boy with surgically removed knuckles and blow-softening elbow and knee implants can still rob a store or rape a lady with one of those implements.
While we're at it, why don't we just pop everyone's brain out of their body at birth, and slip into a robot that is very interactive but ultimately incapable of any form of sabotage, betrayal, or violence towards other robots of it's type? That would reduce violent crime right?
Then again maybe taking an infant's brain out of it's head at birth is a violent crime itself. Point being, you have a point, you can never end violence. "Nothing ever ends," in the words of the Doc, and any attempt to ultimately end it will ultimately end up being as barbaric as the original violence it attempted to end.
Pretty soon we're all going to be lobotomized at birth so that we shuffle into the slaughterhouse more obediently like so many cattle.