• pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because you’re using the system outside of its intended purpose to break the law. That’s basically the definition of hacking.

    I’m not sure why it being illegal to sell a tool to do that is a hard concept to grasp for so many people.

    I’m not against emulation or pirating, but no shit this was going to happen eventually.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, so no, it’s not hacking. It doesn’t fall under hacking laws. It’s not illegal to sell hacking tools. Basically, everything you said is wrong.

      In this case, it’s all about copyright and the DMCA, which made it illegal to break the copyright protection systems companies put in place or to make or distribute tools to break copyright protection systems.

      So, nothing to do will selling things or hacking. Everything to do with copyright and draconian dot come era laws.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Circumventing copyright protections by using encryption keys in an unauthorized manner is hacking.

        This case might not be explicitly about hacking, but profiting off tools that use IP to circumvent protections is illegal.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The electronic key I purchased and collected from my own hardware is “hacking” because Nintendo’s doesn’t intend it? Maybe the legality of selling a tool to get the key is a hard concept to grasp because the premise is objectionable. If a Switch makes a good doorstop then it will be doing it’s “intended purpose” if that’s what I intend for my property.

      I’m against companies having unjust control over our own computing. Eventually we will stop tolerating the abuse of people contributing to an open/libre community.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You might own the hardware, but you don’t own the rights to the OS that runs on it. The encryption key is part of that software.

        It’s not a hard concept to grasp. If I was openly selling a tool to break the activation lock on Windows, I could expect the same result.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sony tried to claim ownership of an encryption key and were justifiably mocked them for trying to own a long number. A number tied to a copy of Windows can be owned/resold in Europe - I don’t know the exact legal justifications but needing the key to actually use the software you paid for probably has something to do with it. Nintendo chooses to encode a key exactly because copyright law prevents people decoding it, otherwise I could use software I paid for how I want and on hardware I choose.

          I think user software freedom aught to be a more known concept in society.

        • mashbooq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a ridiculous idea. If I buy a computer with an OS that has an encryption key to protect the hard drive, and later I need that key to remove my data to another system, I have an entirely reasonable expectation that I’m allowed to do so, regardless of how much the computer manufacturer doesn’t want me to.