That gibberish is - again - just talking about "unauthorized, pirated copies". I.e. a copy Nintendo doesn't want you to be able to make. The MIG Switch is not circumventing anything. It's just presenting an exact copy of a cartridge to the Switch. There's no "trick" involved.

▲

commandersaki 20 hours ago | parent [-]

In essence, Nintendo game cartridges are designed to be non fungible, this is because they are bestowed with a unique digital certificate which the Switch uses to authenticate that it is playing an official game cartridge. The provenance of the certificate is in the game cartridge. These certificates aren't just a simple serial number either, they are sophisticated in the sense that Nintendo uses it to detect multiple use of a game across many of its consoles, so it is a valid technology protection measure. This also prevents a counterfeit market. Just because you present the same exact bits of a game cartridge to a console in a different form factor doesn't mean the TPM isn't being violated.

I'm sure we could get into the weeds with technicalities and ifs and buts, but it isn't really about being technical or clever, it is about the spirit of the law and what the DMCA Section 1201 is about.

But having said that, DMCA 1201 (2) (a) and (b) is what you want.

▲

mbirth 20 hours ago | parent [-]

The technical details don't matter in this case. You're doing a 1:1 copy/clone. You're not manipulating anything and thus you're not circumventing anything. No special care is taken about the certificate or anything else.

Just because the Switch can't tell the difference between an original cartridge and a cloned one doesn't make it illegal per se. (What's the protection measure that was circumvented there?) It's just that the law is "broken" as it was made by those people making money from it.

	▲	commandersaki 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The technical protection measure is the digital certificate and possibly even the proprietary game cartridge form factor. (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or In my opinion (A) is violated because the non fungibility of the game cartridge is violated by copying the certificate to present an inauthentic cartridge as genuine. (B) is pretty straightforward. But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Nintendo lawyers are wrong, and this guy could've fought this specific charge over a technicality. Reminds me of how Sov Cits always get out of traffic infringements because they're "traveling".