this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
368 points (98.7% liked)

Games

16806 readers
867 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
368
Nintendo Switch Modder Who Refused to Shut Down Now Takes to Court Against Nintendo Without a Lawyer (www.ign.com)
submitted 1 month ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Based on what?

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)
  1. He's going to court without a lawyer, which is always always always a bad idea (I wish that weren't the case but it is a fact);
  2. He's tried to claim he doesn't own or operate the business in question;
  3. His defenses are spaghetti thrown at the wall:

His defenses include fair use, invalid copyrights, a lack of standing, fraudulent inducement, an arbitration clause, failure to state a claim, and unjust enrichment.

Many of these (in fact, all but the arbitration clause; that's probably from their TOS but won't save him) are SovCit arguments and simply do not apply. They're going to be dismantled in seconds in court, and I know that with at best a slightly-better-than-layperson understanding of the law. This guy is going to get thoroughly Bowser'd.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Pro se parties often get a more relaxed interpretation of their arguments because they can't be expected to know everything about the law unlike an attorney. If there's a chance that any of those arguments has merit then the judge will allow it.