Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chewmieser 629 days ago
MIG Flash Dumper
2 comments

You mean the one that Nintendo crushed and now has details on everyone who bought (or at least ordered) one?

Sure those are just flying around where anyone can grab one.

If you have a 1st hardware generation Switch you have all the dumping hardware you require anyway.

Huh? Last I checked you can still order them off AliExpress without an issue. And I highly doubt that Nintendo would go after the thousands of people who bought one after the big MIG Switch announcements.
they're not "going after" MIG Dumper customers, I didn't say that. Remember what people actually say vs. what you imagine them saying when you want to argue with them.

Nintendo seek customer information in order to inform those customers that they are in possession of illegally obtained copyrighted material.

> Last I checked you can still order them off AliExpress without an issue.

Copyright is barely a thing in China, and is almost never enforced. And certainly the tech culture there is very much pro-copying.

That doesn’t fit the bill, as it seems to only be for “making backup copies”, not interfacing directly with an emulator.
You can play your backup on the emulator, and you can even make these backup through a modded Switch.
But that doesn’t allow for this, the original assertion:

> But IP law says nothing about interaction with already-existing copies.

…because it requires a separate copy.

> …because it requires a separate copy.

That's an absurd statement, it's the same with most program, you make a copy of the data from a CD/Flash to the host machine storage, then make another copy to the RAM for execution.

Are you arguing that installing a software is akin to making an illegal copy ?

A proprietary cart has a license that doesn’t include any provisions for installation. Thus, it is only authorized to be executed directly from the cart. So in the specific case I’m talking about, as opposed to your premature extrapolation, yes. Copying the data from a cart to another system that isn’t directly executing the data from that cart is an illegal act.
> A proprietary cart has a license that doesn’t include any provisions for installation. Thus, it is only authorized to be executed directly from the cart. So in the specific case I’m talking about, as opposed to your premature extrapolation, yes.

No, the wishes of Nintendo are not law.

> Copying the data from a cart to another system that isn’t directly executing the data from that cart is an illegal act.

Not it isn't, it's explicitly stated that making a copy to run the program is not a infringement[1]

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

If that's the law then the law is stupid and should be changed.
Where did purchasers of physical copies have a chance to read that license and did the store clerk require their signature to prove that they agreed to such an EULA?
Not in light of IP law which is what you're arguing about unknowledgably.