You can’t have your cake and eat it too: Nintendo Switch edition
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Georgia Jenkins
Sep 30, 2026, 6:39:13 AMSep 30
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to ipkat_...@googlegroups.com
Home / circumvention devices / contributory infringement / Copyright infringement and breach of licence agreement / default judgment / DMCA / Georgia Jenkins / modding / permanent injunction / statutory damages / USA / videogames / You can’t have your cake and eat it too: Nintendo Switch edition
You can’t have your cake and eat it too: Nintendo Switch edition
In 2024, Nintendo of America commenced copyright infringement proceedings against James C. Williams in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to the US Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq, including 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(a), 1201(a)(1) and 1201(b)(1). This was alongside claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.
Background
Known as ‘Archbox’ online, Williams moderated a 190,000 member Reddit community called r/SwitchPirates where he promoted online shops that sold apps for modded Nintendo Switch players to download games hosted externally (e.g. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, The Legend of Selda: Tears of the Kingdom, Super Mario Odyssey and Animal Crossing: New Horizons). Although the Archbox pseudonym initially evaded Nintendo, a pre-complaint investigation later tied Williams to a Nintendo account used to send a Switch console for repair (i.e. the ‘cake’), as well as his Reddit posts.
At first, Williams engaged with Nintendo following a cease-and-desist letter. However, a few months later there was little response beyond the removal of evidence from his GitHub and other social media accounts that advertised the online shops. In October 2025, Nintendo requested that the clerk enter default against Williams. Nearly a year later, the court granted default judgment against Williams pursuant to the Eitel factors (namely, the merits of the claims, sufficiency of the complaint, and the sum of money at stake in the action) a preliminary injunction, and damages.
A straightforward case of copyright infringement and contractual breaches
The court referred to a long-list of public Reddit screenshots. From Williams describing himself as a ‘pirate’ that refused to ‘give Nintendo $50 for a game’ to more direct posts that crowdsourced pirated games (e.g. ‘donated’ videogames or Nintendo eShop Gift cards used to purchase video games for pirated copies), the court found that Nintendo had properly pleaded claims relating to infringement of at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders. This was also supported by posts that detailed Williams’ offer of technical advice and encouragement to users regarding the online shops, downloading and installing circumvention software, and playing pirated copies. The court also agreed with Nintendo that Williams’ posts that explained that the related Github account was ‘DCMA-d’ requiring mirroring to a ‘Russian only fans scraper’ amounted to wilful copyright infringement.
Regarding the claim for contributory copyright infringement, the court found that this was properly pleaded. The claims outlined that Williams’ promotion of the online shops offering pirated games and circumvention software, encouragement to ‘donate’, and assistance in distributing the pirated games occurred despite his knowledge that these activities infringed copyright law. By extension, the court found that the same activity infringed the prohibition against circumvention and trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA.
As Williams had entered into an end-user licensing agreement (EULA) with Nintendo based on the console, the above activity also breached the clauses that prohibits distribution of unauthorised copies and the circumvention of any of the protections of the Nintendo Switch console. Nintendo argued that this caused them to lose profits from Williams and from the online shop users and damaged Nintendo’s intellectual property. Again, these finding supported the claim that despite Williams’ knowledge of these clauses, he encouraged and induced other Nintendo Switch users to use circumvent software to access pirate shops and the pirated games to play them. This resulted in a claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy. As a result, Nintendo alleged that it suffered loss and decreased profits from those accounts terminated for breach of their EULAs.
The big question – how much is reasonable?
First the court explained that a default judgment requires considering the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct (Eitel). The recovery sought must be proportional to the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct (PepsiCo). Nintendo argued that $4.5 million is reasonable because it reflects the $150,000 maximum statutory damage amount for a willful copyright violation for each of the 30 games listed. Although Williams’ refusal to participate in the lawsuit impeded discovery, Nintendo alleged that ‘it is indisputable that such an amount would be large’ as Williams helped distribute ‘thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of unauthorised copies’. In what they termed ‘a gesture of reasonableness’, Nintendo explained that they only sought damages related to the 30 games listed, did not seek statutory damages under the DMCA and did not pursue attorney’s fees.
As the claims were properly pleaded, the court found that a default judgment was warranted. This left the question of statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. The court outlined that a court must consider the infringer’s profits and the expenses they saved because of infringement, the plaintiff’s lost revenues, the strong public interest in ensuring the integrity of copyright laws, and whether the infringer acted willfully. The court agreed with Nintendo, that given the discussion above, $4.5 million was appropriate.
Lastly the court granted a permanent injunction which required Williams to immediately disable access to all online shops that he operated that offered the pirated videogames and any associated online platform accounts used to distribute illegal copies of games or circumvention devices. As above, reasonableness is a factor and it was significant that Williams refused to cease conduct upon notification by Nintendo and was aware of at least one online shop being infringing given his posts about being ‘DMCA-d’. Williams’ refusal to participate in the lawsuit and attempts to remove evidence tipped the balance in favour of Nintendo especially given the ongoing hardship related to the covert and widespread nature of the infringement. This also challenged the goal of the Copyright Act to promote creativity for the public good as it would disincentivise creators to develop new works.
Comment
Although Williams referred to ‘game dumping’ in one of his Reddit posts – where users decrypt and extract files from videogames for preservation purposes – Williams’ conduct was far more egregious. It also seemed to have broken a long-standing rule within Reddit communities that ‘you should never, ever, ever try to make money through piracy’. Putting the questionable moral compass of Williams aside, this case confirms as much by granting eye-watering statutory damages that the average person would be unable to pay in their lifetime.
While Williams’ conduct was clearly infringing, the wider modding community operates within a fuzzier legal space. As the way we access and play games increasingly changes, how copyright and contract law set this relationship is significant. Only this year the Internationale Computerspielesammlung, that housed ‘the world's largest publicly accessible video game archive’, is being ‘wound down’ after the German government declined future funding bids. It comes at a time where Sony has decided to ‘cease physical game disc production’ from January 2028; likely with severe ramifications for ownership, accessibility and culture.
As one reporter noted, Williams received his repaired Nintendo Switch two days before the cease and desist letter arrived. Perhaps he should have stuck to playing it and not boasting about his pirated games empire on Reddit. Paraphrasing SouljaBoy, ‘What is Nintendo going to do, sue me?: Yes, of course they will.
Background
Known as ‘Archbox’ online, Williams moderated a 190,000 member Reddit community called r/SwitchPirates where he promoted online shops that sold apps for modded Nintendo Switch players to download games hosted externally (e.g. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, The Legend of Selda: Tears of the Kingdom, Super Mario Odyssey and Animal Crossing: New Horizons). Although the Archbox pseudonym initially evaded Nintendo, a pre-complaint investigation later tied Williams to a Nintendo account used to send a Switch console for repair (i.e. the ‘cake’), as well as his Reddit posts.
At first, Williams engaged with Nintendo following a cease-and-desist letter. However, a few months later there was little response beyond the removal of evidence from his GitHub and other social media accounts that advertised the online shops. In October 2025, Nintendo requested that the clerk enter default against Williams. Nearly a year later, the court granted default judgment against Williams pursuant to the Eitel factors (namely, the merits of the claims, sufficiency of the complaint, and the sum of money at stake in the action) a preliminary injunction, and damages.
 |
| Photo by 6 9 on Unsplash |
The judgment centres on whether claims are properly pleaded as then the court takes the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. However, the plaintiff is still required to prove what remedy they are entitled to receive – here, $4.5m in statutory damages.
A straightforward case of copyright infringement and contractual breaches
The court referred to a long-list of public Reddit screenshots. From Williams describing himself as a ‘pirate’ that refused to ‘give Nintendo $50 for a game’ to more direct posts that crowdsourced pirated games (e.g. ‘donated’ videogames or Nintendo eShop Gift cards used to purchase video games for pirated copies), the court found that Nintendo had properly pleaded claims relating to infringement of at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders. This was also supported by posts that detailed Williams’ offer of technical advice and encouragement to users regarding the online shops, downloading and installing circumvention software, and playing pirated copies. The court also agreed with Nintendo that Williams’ posts that explained that the related Github account was ‘DCMA-d’ requiring mirroring to a ‘Russian only fans scraper’ amounted to wilful copyright infringement.
Regarding the claim for contributory copyright infringement, the court found that this was properly pleaded. The claims outlined that Williams’ promotion of the online shops offering pirated games and circumvention software, encouragement to ‘donate’, and assistance in distributing the pirated games occurred despite his knowledge that these activities infringed copyright law. By extension, the court found that the same activity infringed the prohibition against circumvention and trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA.
As Williams had entered into an end-user licensing agreement (EULA) with Nintendo based on the console, the above activity also breached the clauses that prohibits distribution of unauthorised copies and the circumvention of any of the protections of the Nintendo Switch console. Nintendo argued that this caused them to lose profits from Williams and from the online shop users and damaged Nintendo’s intellectual property. Again, these finding supported the claim that despite Williams’ knowledge of these clauses, he encouraged and induced other Nintendo Switch users to use circumvent software to access pirate shops and the pirated games to play them. This resulted in a claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy. As a result, Nintendo alleged that it suffered loss and decreased profits from those accounts terminated for breach of their EULAs.
The big question – how much is reasonable?
First the court explained that a default judgment requires considering the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct (Eitel). The recovery sought must be proportional to the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct (PepsiCo). Nintendo argued that $4.5 million is reasonable because it reflects the $150,000 maximum statutory damage amount for a willful copyright violation for each of the 30 games listed. Although Williams’ refusal to participate in the lawsuit impeded discovery, Nintendo alleged that ‘it is indisputable that such an amount would be large’ as Williams helped distribute ‘thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of unauthorised copies’. In what they termed ‘a gesture of reasonableness’, Nintendo explained that they only sought damages related to the 30 games listed, did not seek statutory damages under the DMCA and did not pursue attorney’s fees.
As the claims were properly pleaded, the court found that a default judgment was warranted. This left the question of statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. The court outlined that a court must consider the infringer’s profits and the expenses they saved because of infringement, the plaintiff’s lost revenues, the strong public interest in ensuring the integrity of copyright laws, and whether the infringer acted willfully. The court agreed with Nintendo, that given the discussion above, $4.5 million was appropriate.
Lastly the court granted a permanent injunction which required Williams to immediately disable access to all online shops that he operated that offered the pirated videogames and any associated online platform accounts used to distribute illegal copies of games or circumvention devices. As above, reasonableness is a factor and it was significant that Williams refused to cease conduct upon notification by Nintendo and was aware of at least one online shop being infringing given his posts about being ‘DMCA-d’. Williams’ refusal to participate in the lawsuit and attempts to remove evidence tipped the balance in favour of Nintendo especially given the ongoing hardship related to the covert and widespread nature of the infringement. This also challenged the goal of the Copyright Act to promote creativity for the public good as it would disincentivise creators to develop new works.
Comment
Although Williams referred to ‘game dumping’ in one of his Reddit posts – where users decrypt and extract files from videogames for preservation purposes – Williams’ conduct was far more egregious. It also seemed to have broken a long-standing rule within Reddit communities that ‘you should never, ever, ever try to make money through piracy’. Putting the questionable moral compass of Williams aside, this case confirms as much by granting eye-watering statutory damages that the average person would be unable to pay in their lifetime.
While Williams’ conduct was clearly infringing, the wider modding community operates within a fuzzier legal space. As the way we access and play games increasingly changes, how copyright and contract law set this relationship is significant. Only this year the Internationale Computerspielesammlung, that housed ‘the world's largest publicly accessible video game archive’, is being ‘wound down’ after the German government declined future funding bids. It comes at a time where Sony has decided to ‘cease physical game disc production’ from January 2028; likely with severe ramifications for ownership, accessibility and culture.
As one reporter noted, Williams received his repaired Nintendo Switch two days before the cease and desist letter arrived. Perhaps he should have stuck to playing it and not boasting about his pirated games empire on Reddit. Paraphrasing SouljaBoy, ‘What is Nintendo going to do, sue me?: Yes, of course they will.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages