this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
445 points (97.6% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54411 readers
189 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's complicated. I'm no lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, but LLCs don't offer blanket protection. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
It is possible to go after people directly, and side step the LLC protection in certain cases. Depends how much Nintendo wants to screw these guys.
I think Nintendo is gonna chill out because they got what they wanted. AFAIK in the super blatant piracy lawsuits, they won huge sums of money but required stupidly low payments of $50 monthly. Part of me thinks that they don't actually care about piracy itself, but they do care about how it affects their ownership of their properties.
A big reason why I say that is because of a legal theory made by Moon Channel on YouTube. Nintendo as a young company was sued by Universal because Donkey Kong violated the King Kong trademark. Nintendo won that case by arguing that Universal lost said trademark because it was loosely enforced, and they probably feared that another company could do the same to them if they weren't careful. This could be why they are only suing big targets that are profiting from emulation/piracy and not "non-profits" or smaller sites.
That being said, Nintendo wants to create legal precedent by denying a specific principle in the DMCA that was legally ambiguous. Previously, it was assumed that you could bypass copy protections by supplying your own keys, but now, providing instructions on how to do so may not be allowed.