Nintendo's big piracy case is a sad story

Re:Nintendo's big piracy case is a sad story by Retr0id on Thursday June 09, 2022 @06:32PM (#31687806)

I believe the wording used is "effective technological protection measure". So it's presumably up to the courts to decide whether the DRM was "effective" in the first place. (I am not a lawyer etc. etc.). I suspect it largely comes down to intent. To make an analogy, you'd still be on the hook for breaking-and-entering, even if your victim's front door was made of cardboard.

> How can bypassing DRM even be illegal?

Same way anything else can be illegal, they made a law saying so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nintendo's big piracy case is a sad story by boomboomsubban on Thursday June 09, 2022 @06:36PM (#31687845)

The law includes a definition of that term

>a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

So bypassing trivial DRM is still a crime.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nintendo's big piracy case is a sad story by inlined on Thursday June 09, 2022 @07:49PM (#31688401)

Iirc there is case precedence for Adobe successfully invoking the DMCA with a ROT13 protection system. That’s the software equivalence off a child’s decoder ring and can be done in BASH built in (`tr`)

[ Parent | on HN ]