Switch modder who represented himself in piracy case ordered to pay Nintendo $2 million

[midian182]

What just happened? Few companies have a reputation for litigation quite like Nintendo, which is why taking the gaming giant on in court, especially when representing yourself, is a dangerous move. Just ask the Switch modder who followed this course of action, lost, and must now pay $2 million.

The case revolves around the website Modded Hardware, which sold devices like the MIG Switch flashcart and MIG Dumper. While both are marketed as backup devices, they are used for piracy purposes as they let users rip game cartridges into digital files and load/run them without the original cartridge.

In July 2024, Nintendo filed a lawsuit at a Washington federal court against Flint, Michigan, resident Ryan Daly, Modded Hardware's operator. Nintendo had warned Daly to close his business the previous March, but he ignored it, leading to the legal action.

Perhaps unwisely, Daly decided to forgo any legal representation, representing himself in court. He denied Nintendo's accusations of trafficking hacked hardware and the implication that he sold products pre-loaded with pirated games.

Daly's arguments for his defence included everything from fair use allowances to invalid copyrights. But despite his brave attempt at defending himself, Nintendo and its presumably highly skilled and well-paid lawyers triumphed in the case.

The court found that Modded Hardware sold piracy-enabling devices, hacked consoles, and mod chips that caused Nintendo of America "significant and irreparable harm," allowing pirated copies of Nintendo games to be created, distributed and played "on a massive scale." Nintendo argued that this threatened sales and undermined the Switch's ecosystem.

Daly must now pay the company $2 million, shut down the Modded Hardware website, and hand the domain over to Nintendo. The permanent injunction also prohibits him from sharing documentation or information related to console modification.

No company is as aggressive in its pursuit of pirates, or perceived pirates, as Nintendo. This year saw the first-ever Switch modding case in Japan end with a fine and a suspended jail sentence. The firm won another lawsuit against French file-sharing company Dstorage, which hosted pirated Nintendo content, in March. And in November, Nintendo pursued a concerning subpoena to obtain Reddit's business records in order to identify members of piracy subreddits.

Permalink to story:

Switch modder who represented himself in piracy case ordered to pay Nintendo $2 million

 

[trparky]

How does the old phrase go?

Anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client.

 

[Anton Longshot]

How does the old phrase go?

Anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client.

One would think this was common knowledge but this case proves otherwise.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

One would think this was common knowledge but this case proves otherwise.

We would have to assume of course that he had the money to pay for extended litigation against Nintendo. These cases can drag on for years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Squid Surprise]

We would have to assume of course that he had the money to pay for extended litigation against Nintendo. These cases can drag on for years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Well, he lost 2 million... so I'm guessing he DID have at least enough money to hire a competent lawyer... what we don't know is if he had any previous legal training / education...

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Well, he lost 2 million... so I'm guessing he DID have at least enough money to hire a competent lawyer... what we don't know is if he had any previous legal training / education...

Those 2 things are not connected in any way. Being handed a 2 million dollar judgement has absolutely no bearing on how much money you have at present.

 

[airbornex]

Representing yourself against Nintendo is like bringing a Joy-Con to a sword fight. Spoiler: the Joy-Con drifts.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Those 2 things are not connected in any way. Being handed a 2 million dollar judgement has absolutely no bearing on how much money you have at present.

Well, it implies he either has 2 million or has access to it…

Since he owned a store that profited from piracy, the assumption is that he has some (if not all) of those profits.

Since he was handed a 2 million fine, the assumption is that he made about that much - which means he should have the tens of thousands required for a lawyer, even if not the entire 2 million.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Well, it implies he either has 2 million or has access to it…

No, it doesnt. That implies that $2 million is the value of damage he did to nintendo.

Since he owned a store that profited from piracy, the assumption is that he has some (if not all) of those profits.

Since he was handed a 2 million fine, the assumption is that he made about that much - which means he should have the tens of thousands required for a lawyer, even if not the entire 2 million.

Please learn how financial penalties are handled by the legal system. Damages are not based solely on possible revenue for the offender.

 

[3ogdy]

This right here is a wonderful reason NOT TO BUY Nintendo products.
Jailtime for an enthusiast ?
Nintendo, you fools, other companies would've hired the guy, so that he could contribute to the bottom line.

 

[Squid Surprise]

No, it doesnt. That implies that $2 million is the value of damage he did to nintendo.

Please learn how financial penalties are handled by the legal system. Damages are not based solely on possible revenue for the offender.

Not the point - while obviously things don't match completely, one doesn't get fined $2 million if you are penniless...

You'd get jailtime instead if they thought you had no money.

 

[toooooot]

And that's boys why piracy is bad

 

[MasterAce]

If you own the cardridge, does the game get added to your Nintendo account enabling downloading and play without the cardridge?

 

[sholden]

Not the point - while obviously things don't match completely, one doesn't get fined $2 million if you are penniless...

You'd get jailtime instead if they thought you had no money.

It's not a fine. You can't get jailtime from a civil case.

 

[Chrisw2003]

Bro should have argued right to repair and archive personal data. Does GM get sued every time someone speeds in their Corvette? Does Ford get sued every time a mustang does mustang things? Just because someone miss uses your item doesn't mean your response for it. People can use Google drive to store pirated movies, does the MPAA go after Google and sue them for lost revenue each time? Reasonable things to compare his items against.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's not a fine. You can't get jailtime from a civil case.

Semantics… if Nintendo didn’t think he had assets, they wouldn’t have bothered seeking reparations… they’d have gone for jail time instead.

 

[BonoboMisfit]

Semantics… if Nintendo didn’t think he had assets, they wouldn’t have bothered seeking reparations… they’d have gone for jail time instead.

Yes... Semantics is everything when it comes to law. Are you really saying "semantics" to someone pointing out civil vs criminal law? They're in completely separate categories. You can't go to jail for a civil offense.

And no, companies and individuals sue all the time even if they believe the other party doesn't have the assets to cover it--the point isn't whether or not they have the money but it's about the damages.

Disney has sued college students with no money before for millions for IP reasons.

How these things tend to work out is that essentially you now owe a chunk of whatever income you get from that point on to the party you owe the money to until the damages are paid off.

Why are you so confident in a topic you clearly have ZERO knowledge and experience in? Use common sense.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yes... Semantics is everything when it comes to law. Are you really saying "semantics" to someone pointing out civil vs criminal law? They're in completely separate categories. You can't go to jail for a civil offense.

And no, companies and individuals sue all the time even if they believe the other party doesn't have the assets to cover it--the point isn't whether or not they have the money but it's about the damages.

Disney has sued college students with no money before for millions for IP reasons.

How these things tend to work out is that essentially you now owe a chunk of whatever income you get from that point on to the party you owe the money to until the damages are paid off.

Why are you so confident in a topic you clearly have ZERO knowledge and experience in? Use common sense.

Cause I’m not a lawyer… just pointing out a pretty obvious point you’ve decided to find issue with…

The guy should have hired a lawyer - he clearly had enough money to do so…

 

[JuanDegr]

Nintendo is living in the past. In the long run, copyright as we know it is headed for collapse. We already see this in practice: Big Chinese corporations like SAIC have shipped millions of cars running unlicensed software. Large western Tech corps train large-scale AI-LLM with copyrighted works - all of that (almost) without consequence.

Yet law enforcement strategies still target individuals with minor lawsuits while letting major corporations and entire nations violate IP at scale. This double standard does more to erode the credibility of global copyright protections than it does to safeguard anyone.

My guess: In a decade or so copyright in software and games will be fully dead. Unless somebody stops further AI development.