• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Nintendo hits popular homebrew YouTuber, Modern Vintage Gamer, with numerous copyright claims forcing him to stop making Switch homebrew videos.

Oct 25, 2017
1,515
Nintendo is extremely protective of their properties and IP's. I can understand it - homebrew is not endorsed by Nintendo
Homebrew requires voiding the warranty on your Switch. Pretty sure that Nintendo is not going to sit idly by while this video is on the Internet. I wouldn't if I were them
What you do in the privacy of your home is one thing. Putting it up on the Internet and monetizing it for the World to see is completely different - only a true idiot would think Nintendo would leave them alone, when Nintendo has done everything it can to combat ROMs and Internet piracy
They aren't going to do anything to the Youtube guy. They simply want his channel off the air - mission accomplished
Youtube is a cesspool to begin. with. And yes, I support Nintendo or any other company taking people such as this off of the Internet. Are you telling me that what he is doing is legal? If so, maybe he should just lawyer up?
I’m not trolling. I’m serious - I don’t support home brew or piracy which these mods always inevitably lead to. But then I have a friend who works in the industry and feels the same way.

And if the YouTube guy thinks he has a case he could sue Nintendo.
6 blatantly awful or straight up false comments in relatively short succession. Not once do you answer comments replying to you.

Hope you get banned because if that ain't arguing in bad faith then discussions might as well be ninten-doomed.
 
Oct 26, 2017
891
User Warned: Inflammatory generalisation
Why do threads on homebrew always spawn such clueless clowns? It's sickening.
It brings out the true believer crowd. Nintendo could have shot this guys dog and these people would defend them.
You agreed to those TOS when you bought the device, didn't you? Well, tough luck, Woofers gotta go to teach you a lesson!
 
Oct 25, 2017
508
This doesn't fall under DMCA, this takedown is an abuse of power of the system. This feels like Nintendo vs. Cheating Devices all over again. In the end, the courts ruled that people have a right to *modify* and repair their system. I don't blame Nintendo for wanting to prevent people from spreading the word about hacking their devices, but this isn't the way to go about it.
This is a good analogy imo.
 

MrNelson

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,312
Tampa, FL
I’m not trolling. I’m serious - I don’t support home brew or piracy which these mods always inevitably lead to. But then I have a friend who works in the industry and feels the same way.
Even for legacy systems?

Don't you see the value in modifying older disc-based systems to play off a hard drive or SD card?
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,110
Its still in the YouTube terms of service that videogame publishers decide the rules for their content.

I actually don't doubt this, but: Citation Please?

Edit: I cannot find this anywhere so far:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/138161?hl=en

Video game and software content
What can I monetize?
Video game content may be monetized depending on the commercial use rights granted to you by licenses of video game publishers. Some video game publishers allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and state that in their license agreements. Likewise, videos showing software user interface may be monetized only if you have a contract with the publisher or you have paid a licensing fee.
To learn more about obtaining commercial use rights to third party content, please review how to read licenses to understand your rights and what YouTube looks for in your documentation.

What can't I monetize?
Without the appropriate license from the publisher, use of video game or software user interface must be minimal. Video game content may be monetized if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and provides instructional or educational value.
Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization.

This doesn't seem to back up what you are saying. Not saying you are wrong, only that I cannot find it personally.
 
Last edited:

ccieag

Banned
Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,339
Vail, CO
blatantly awful or straight up false comments in relatively short succession. Not once do you answer comments replying to you.

Hope you get banned because if that ain't arguing in bad faith then discussions might as well be ninten-doomed.
I have been on a plane all day after initial posts. As for home-brew, I was under the impression it was illegal, especially on a modern game system still on the market. If not, then I am wrong. But if not, why would Nintendo actually care or not?
 
Sep 18, 2018
636
Nintendo has made it pretty clear where they stand on these matters. I don’t understand why people are shocked anymore. They do this every few months. If you’re gonna break the Ninten-rules do it quietly, or don’t complain when the thing all evidence said was a bad idea turns out to be a bad idea.
 
Oct 27, 2017
101
I have been on a plane all day after initial posts. As for home-brew, I was under the impression it was illegal, especially on a modern game system still on the market. If not, then I am wrong. But if not, why would Nintendo actually care or not?
It's not illegal, no.
It's not though. I'd want to see a cite that says it is.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf

Section III, A, 4

It is in the 2018 exemptions.
It's your device, you own it. Nintendo can void the warranty once you leave the boundaries of regular use or kick you off their servers, since they naturally have rights too, but it's not illegal. As for why Nintendo cares: Because they see it as a threat, despite it being perfectly legal and within your rights as an owner.

Note that Nintendo's claim is about inclusion of little bits of footage in the videos, some of which are simply made up and false like the claim for Splatoon 2 footage. Their claim isn't about homebrew, that's merely why they are targeting this YouTuber.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,868
Nintendos website also covers this:



https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp <- also covers their view on roms, emulator and devices to make game backups

The Switch method is not a modchip but a way to circumvent the security systems put in place. So homebrew is not accepable to them. Even if its cool on the internet.
You're one weird Squirtle, in the sense that instead of repeating your name like a regular pokémon would, you repeat "Nintendo's word is law" again and again.
 
Nov 4, 2017
1,659
You're one weird Squirtle, in the sense that instead of repeating your name like a regular pokémon would, you repeat "Nintendo's word is law" again and again.
Thank you for making me laugh out loud. At work. On the shitter. Now I have to wait for everybody else to leave so nobody knows it was me. I'm also reporting your rebelliousness to my uncle (he works at Nintendo).
 
Dec 13, 2017
4,349
It's not illegal, no.

It's your device, you own it. Nintendo can void the warranty once you leave the boundaries of regular use or kick you off their servers, since they naturally have rights too, but it's not illegal. As for why Nintendo cares: Because they see it as a threat, despite it being perfectly legal and within your rights as an owner.

Note that Nintendo's claim is about inclusion of little bits of footage in the videos, some of which are simply made up and false like the claim for Splatoon 2 footage. Their claim isn't about homebrew, that's merely why they are targeting this YouTuber.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me because you're in violent agreement with what you're quoting. :)
 
Feb 6, 2019
235
Oh god not this dumb conspiracy theory again
I highly doubt evil hackers have it out for Nintendo.
And there it is, I swear it's only when it comes to Nintendo and emulators/homebrew that all the crazies come out the woodwork.
Its called free market, Offer and demand. the people working on the OG Xbox emulator dropped it cause there was not interest in the title, people working on CEMU did so cause they had a 5 figures patreon every month. is not


there is the demand for it and hackers simple follow suit to get money/ recognition for Opening a device/ enabling HB
Nintendo have done a shit tier job at fighting piracy, because they ignore the demand for their older games
you are working under the idea that if Nintendo were to offer (you) a way to buy any title, boom, magically people will not longer care for HB or piracy. and that is IMO wishful thinking.


Only a true idiot would think that homebrew is only for piracy.

Nintendo is being disingenuous and is abusing the copyright violation system.
under current gen device (switch), if you crack your device is for either Piracy/ Cheating or HB funky stuff.
basically you are telling Nintendo to stick to a corner and hope that the majority of people cracking their devices will be "the good guys" doing funky stuff instead of "the bad pirate guys".
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
4,715
People still work on OG Xbox emulation. Most people gave up because that thing is an absolute mess of undocumented complexity, while both the WiiU and the Switch use fairly well understood hardware. Recently CXBX-R has had quite a lot of progress in particular.

Patreon also did not exist when OG Xbox emulation started, and now it does exist we also see well run campaigns for other projects like RPCS3.

And anyway, this thread isn't really about emulation, but hacking and homebrew. There are hacking communities for the vast majority of consoles out there and the guy this thread is about literally made his name contributing to the OG Xbox hacking community.

It's a fucking conspiracy theory, and it's only spouted by idiotic Nintendo fans.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
892
I have been on a plane all day after initial posts. As for home-brew, I was under the impression it was illegal, especially on a modern game system still on the market. If not, then I am wrong. But if not, why would Nintendo actually care or not?
Why the heck would it be illegal to modify something you've bought? Do you think it would hold in court if HP or some other said you weren't able to install another OS on your computer? Or if Microsoft said you couldn't install pirated software onto Windows?
 
Oct 9, 2018
5
User Banned (3 Days): Trolling and backseat moderation
Mods fucked up by intervening too quickly in this thread.

Sure, a few fanboys got hit with temporary leaves but the remaining majority of them scattered away after the first bans were issued.

The way i see it mod team should treat Nintendo emulation/homebrew, positive Microsoft news and EGS controversy/discussion threads as honeypots by not intervening for a while therefore luring all the fanboys.

This is the only way to rid Era from its console fanboys.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,598
Why do people go to the ends of the earth to defend big corporations that couldn't give two shits about them?

It really is an odd psychological effect. Very odd indeed.
I haven’t said anything in this thread but as a shareholder of Nintendo, that’s why I would theoretically defend them doing this. I have a lot of shares in the company, I want them to protect their IP, prevent piracy, and make as much cash as possible. If they think this is the right alway to do that, then I support it.

Also I don’t give a fuck about modding my console so it doesn’t really bother me if they make it harder for random internet people to do it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,239
This doesn't fall under DMCA, this takedown is an abuse of power of the system. This feels like Nintendo vs. Cheating Devices all over again. In the end, the courts ruled that people have a right to *modify* and repair their system. I don't blame Nintendo for wanting to prevent people from spreading the word about hacking their devices, but this isn't the way to go about it.
This is most definitely a DMCA issue, just not about copyrighted video content. It is disseminating knowledge of how to break encryption that the console uses to prevent access to copyrighted materials, that is against the DMCA. Whether Nintendo is in the right or not, it does fall under the DMCA, so this isn't an abuse of the system.

Also, with the cheating devices, the courts did not rule that people have the right to modify their system, the courts ruled that changing data stored in memory isn't making a copy of the game so isn't violating copyright, since that was what Nintendo was trying to claim.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,391
As a consumer you have a right to modify any product you own in whichever way you see fit.

Emulators are not illegal. Many companies, including Nintendo, sell software that runs on emulators.

ROMs can, and often are, illegal depending on the way that they are obtained but so far, as far as I know, it has not been tested in a court of law whether making a ripped ROM of a cartridge you own and playing it on an emulator is illegal. Some argue that it is legal because you are basically making a copy of something you own for personal use, like ripping music from a music CD onto your PC.

Nintendo is entirely in their right to protect their intellectual properties but when it comes to these attacks against a Youtuber that promotes homebrew software, I find them to be an abuse of the privilege Youtube grants them.
 
Oct 31, 2017
2,095
Nintendo is entirely in their right to protect their intellectual properties but when it comes to these attacks against a Youtuber that promotes homebrew software, I find them to be an abuse of the privilege Youtube grants them.
Well put. YouTube will side with the client that has bigger pockets/will generate more revenue for YouTube, not the content creators. It's their platform, and it runs on their rules. Nintendo is taking advantage of that, effectively leaning on YT policy as a heavy handed cat's paw. I can't sit here and say what's right or wrong from a policy or DMCA standpoint, but I will state that I think it's a dick move on Nintendo's part.
 
Dec 11, 2017
299
I love Nintendo. I love my Nintendo switch. So much that I bought two of them. One to play Switch games on and make use of their online systems - including the NES games that come ‘free’ with my annual subscription.

My second Switch I hacked the fuck out of it and am running Retroarch.

I will never, ever understood or get used to the idea of ordinary folk defending huge, global, multi billion or trillions pound corporate companies when they go up against small groups or individuals. Especially when it’s a case of defending copyright laws which are unfit for purpose thanks to their abuse by said global corporations having access to the best legal advise and money to twist law to their own devices.

And I’ll say again, I love Nintendo. But I hate lawyers. And I hate laws that can be twisted to suit corporate companies. And I don’t understand those that defend corporate ‘rights’.
 
Nov 1, 2017
1,451
As a consumer you have a right to modify any product you own in whichever way you see fit.

Emulators are not illegal. Many companies, including Nintendo, sell software that runs on emulators.

ROMs can, and often are, illegal depending on the way that they are obtained but so far, as far as I know, it has not been tested in a court of law whether making a ripped ROM of a cartridge you own and playing it on an emulator is illegal. Some argue that it is legal because you are basically making a copy of something you own for personal use, like ripping music from a music CD onto your PC.

Nintendo is entirely in their right to protect their intellectual properties but when it comes to these attacks against a Youtuber that promotes homebrew software, I find them to be an abuse of the privilege Youtube grants them.
Touché. I was going off memory. I think your last paragraph sums up the situation perfectly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,391
I love Nintendo. I love my Nintendo switch. So much that I bought two of them. One to play Switch games on and make use of their online systems - including the NES games that come ‘free’ with my annual subscription.

My second Switch I hacked the fuck out of it and am running Retroarch.

I will never, ever understood or get used to the idea of ordinary folk defending huge, global, multi billion or trillions pound corporate companies when they go up against small groups or individuals. Especially when it’s a case of defending copyright laws which are unfit for purpose thanks to their abuse by said global corporations having access to the best legal advise and money to twist law to their own devices.

And I’ll say again, I love Nintendo. But I hate lawyers. And I hate laws that can be twisted to suit corporate companies. And I don’t understand those that defend corporate ‘rights’.
This has almost nothing to do with laws or lawyers. This has everything to do with bad corporate policies (Youtube's) and Nintendo's abuse of them. The videos affected by Nintendo's takedowns fall entirely under fair use.
 
Dec 11, 2017
299
This has almost nothing to do with laws or lawyers. This has everything to do with bad corporate policies (Youtube's) and Nintendo's abuse of them. The videos affected by Nintendo's takedowns fall entirely under fair use.
I agree. But I think it does have everything to do with lawyers and laws. Lawyers at corporate companies are notorious for this kind of bullshit. And the laws allow them to flex their corporate muscles.
 
Oct 31, 2017
3,725
This has almost nothing to do with laws or lawyers. This has everything to do with bad corporate policies (Youtube's) and Nintendo's abuse of them. The videos affected by Nintendo's takedowns fall entirely under fair use.
Yes, but the DMCA itself requires Youtube to comply with the original takedown regardless of its validity as long as Nintendo is acting within "good faith"
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,391
I agree. But I think it does have everything to do with lawyers and laws. Lawyers at corporate companies are notorious for this kind of bullshit. And the laws allow them to flex their corporate muscles.
No lawyer was involved up to this point. This was a Nintendo employee who manually filed a claim with Youtube to take down the video. The creator of the video could have contested the claim and at that point Nintendo would have to serve him a lawsuit and yes, at that point there would be lawyers involved. Most creators do not contest claims against large corporations because they do not have the financial means to defend themselves in court, which is what seems to be the case here.

Yes, but the DMCA itself requires Youtube to comply with the original takedown regardless of its validity as long as Nintendo is acting within "good faith"
Youtube's implementation of the DMCA is the laziest possible implementation they could have made. It requires zero evidence, at no point does any person in Youtube verify the takedown claim (in the majority of cases) and there are zero consequences for any company or individual that makes a false claim. Youtube doesn't even verify if the person who issues the claim or strike owns the infringed copyright or not. Even if the claim is contested and the video creator gets his video back he will still have lost significant revenue for his video and the person who issued the false claim has nothing done against them, no penalty whatsoever to their account or their standing with Youtube whereas the creator has not only his livelihood but also his channel at risk.

It's a terrible system by any metric. Nintendo is not the first and surely won't be the last to abuse it, a few years ago Sega issued copyright claims and managed to get a few channels deleted from Youtube because any and all videos that referred to their "Shining" series because they had a new entry in the series being released in Japan and wanted it to gain better traction in social media. Sega (Japan) has never withdrawn those claims or issued any sort of apology to the channels affected and some creators lost their channels permanently. Some of the content removed were reviews, some were podcasts discussing the series and some were "let's plays".

As if that wasn't bad enough, some people have tried to used extortion against Youtube creators or have them face takedown claims. It's a terribly broken system that's designed to punish creators and free Youtube of accountability for anything. It doesn't protect Intellectual Property holders as much as it gives companies and scammers a powerful tool to use freely against video creators for any content they dislike at no risk to themselves.

This isn't Nintendo exercising their right to use the DMCA for a legitimate reason. This is Nintendo abusing Youtube's broken DMCA system to take down Fair Use content.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2017
3,725
Youtube's implementation of the DMCA is the laziest possible implementation they could have made. It requires zero evidence, at no point does any person in Youtube verify the takedown claim and there are zero consequences for any company or individual that makes a false claim. Youtube doesn't even verify if the person who issues the claim or strike owns the infringed copyright or not. Even if the claim is contested and the video creator gets his video back he will still have lost significant revenue for his video and the person who issued the false claim has nothing done against them, no penalty whatsoever to their account or their standing with Youtube whereas the creator has not only his livelihood but also his channel at risk.
This is still part of the law. The bolded happens because the all of the risk in making a false DMCA taken is contigent on the person whose content got targeted actually taking the fraudster to court. To quote the text of the law (via Wikipedia):
The first way an OSP can be put on notice is through the copyright holder's written notification of claimed infringement to the OSP's designated agent. This must[13] include the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Youtube doesn't need to verify the claim because the person making the claim already has to send a legally binding document. The problem is that the "penalty of perjury" doesn't really matter when you're confident you're not going to get taken to court. From Youtube's perspective, Nintendo has crossed all their T's so there's no real reason to not comply with the order, especially when not complying with properly filed DMCA takedown requests puts them at legal risk. Copyright strikes and Content ID and all that shit are all Youtube's doing, sure, but the root issue here is that Nintendo is abusing an easily abusable law that Youtube has to follow.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,391
This is still part of the law. The bolded happens because the all of the risk in making a false DMCA taken is contigent on the person whose content got targeted actually taking the fraudster to court. To quote the text of the law (via Wikipedia):

Youtube doesn't need to verify the claim because the person making the claim already has to send a legally binding document. The problem is that the "penalty of perjury" doesn't really matter when you're confident you're not going to get taken to court. From Youtube's perspective, Nintendo has crossed all their T's so there's no real reason to not comply with the order, especially when not complying with properly filed DMCA takedown requests puts them at legal risk. Copyright strikes and Content ID and all that shit are all Youtube's doing, sure, but the root issue here is that Nintendo is abusing an easily abusable law that Youtube has to follow.
If the law is easily abusable it shouldn't put all of their creators at risk of being deleted from their platform so easily. In no point in the process does Youtube do anything that takes the side of the people who actually contribute to its platform and help give it the revenue they love. Bad reviews, playthroughs, illegal music/video uploads, commentary, podcasts, it doesn't matter. Three strikes and you're out, whether its for stealing content or merely referring to a product.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,620
I haven’t said anything in this thread but as a shareholder of Nintendo, that’s why I would theoretically defend them doing this. I have a lot of shares in the company, I want them to protect their IP, prevent piracy, and make as much cash as possible. If they think this is the right alway to do that, then I support it.

Also I don’t give a fuck about modding my console so it doesn’t really bother me if they make it harder for random internet people to do it.
So basically, you’re looking after your own interests, with a total disregard for both ethics, laws and general consumer interest. No offence, but I’d say that makes you part of the problem.
 
Oct 31, 2017
3,725
If the law is easily abusable it shouldn't put all of their creators at risk of being deleted from their platform so easily.
It shouldn't, but it does. I hate many of Youtube's terrible policies, but bad DMCA takedowns are not their fault. It's not like taking down monetized videos benefits them either.

This is really just the same situation as the Jim Sterling vs. Digital Homicide situation except that instead of some dickhead from Arizona, it's Nintendo.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,391
It shouldn't, but it does. I hate many of Youtube's terrible policies, but bad DMCA takedowns are not their fault. It's not like taking down monetized videos benefits them either.
That's true to an extent, but Youtube also keeps revenue earned by the video up until the point of the strike. It may not benefit them, but they hardly lose or risk as much as a content creator.

This is really just the same situation as the Jim Sterling vs. Digital Homicide situation except that instead of some dickhead from Arizona, it's Nintendo.
Careful, he might sue you. but rather than talking to you, he'll have his brother ask you absurd questions on Skype.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,233
not to mention that something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. In philosophy of ethics the law is even considered the lowest form of morality...
It's perfectly fine to stand up for some forms of piracy.
So I was banned for this post and I'm not going to whine about that but I want to clarify my position.

First of all I don't advocate or encourage piracy. My position is that the legality of some activity does not in any way determine the morality of the same activity. You can't derive morality from the law, it has to be the other way around. With that said, I believe there are good arguments for "standing up" for piracy under certain constraints and circumstances. In principle it's really no different than standing up for certain forms of illegal drug use which in light of how marijuana has become legalized in places should be considered a completely non-controversial position by now. The arguments and circumstances are obviously different but the idea of discussing these things in the hopes of improving society isn't.

I think ip owners compared to consumers have disproportionate powers and protections in their ability to control access to ip's and I think that hurts society. That doesn't mean I don't think we should have any IP protections at all or that I encourage piracy, but it does mean that I think there are good arguments for why piracy under specific circumstances isn't morally wrong.
 
Last edited: