Title: Nintendo v. Go Cyber

Learning Objectives

- Describe and recount the arguments in the Nintendo v. Go Cyber case
- Recognize how a broad interpretation of protections and a limited interpretation of exceptions was applied in this case

Not Nintendo's First Copyright Case in Canada

Not Nintendo's First Copyright Case

Nintendo v. Go Cyber is not the first Canadian copyright case the company has been involved in. Nintendo’s first copyright case in Canada goes all the way back to 1983 in Nintendo of America v. Coinex Video Games.

Who is King?

King is the sole director and officer for Go Cyber Shopping. This case is named Nintendo of America Inc. v. King, but is often referred to as Nintendo v. Go Cyber.

Why not target gamers?

The circumvention of TPMs in a private setting is difficult to detect. It is therefore more effective to target manufacturers or those who are providing the circumvention services (Hutchison, 2016).

Where is Go Cyber now?

The company is still around, but the website’s pages related to modified Nintendo consoles and other hardware are now completely empty, with no items for sale. A search for the word ‘Nintendo’ on the Go Cyber website yields 0 search results.

Nintendo’s case against Go Cyber was based on the argument:

Q: Nintendo’s case against Go Cyber was based on the argument:
- Go Cyber had circumvented the shape of the Nintendo cartridges, which constitute a TPM because they were designed to be used exclusively with Nintendo consoles (correct)
- Go Cyber’s replication and circumvention was not transformative
- Go Cyber had not equally circumvented Playstation and Xbox consoles
- Go Cyber had suggested Luigi was better than Mario

Nintendo’s three pronged TPM strategy included:

Q: Nintendo’s three prong TPM strategy included:
- Shape of the cartridges, header data code, and data encryption (correct)
- Shape of the cartridges, special keys, transformative code
- Replication, transformation, encryption
- Zelda, Peach and Daisy

The Canadian interpretation of TPMs differs from the UK approach because:

Q: The Canadian interpretation of TPMs differs from the UK approach because:
- The UK requires a higher standard of the TPM being transformational (correct)
- The UK requires a lower standard of the TPM being occasional
- The UK requires TPMs be “affective”; Canada requires TPMs be “effective”

The Federal Court’s broad interpretation of shape as an effective TPM is problematic because:

Q: The Federal Court’s broad interpretation of shape as an effective TPM is problematic because:
- It may allow any physical or digital aspect of the container of a copyright protected work to be considered a TPM (correct)
- It allows for both affective and effective TPMs
- It requires burglars to have keys
- Bowser must now appear smaller than Mario in all Nintendo games

Choose the correct statement.

Credits: Nintendo v. Go Cyber; by University of Alberta; 2020; licence CC BY 4.0