Almost forgot, I should say howdy to my Brawl partner in the Penny Arcade Brawl Tournament that Didn't Happen Because Most People Didn't Show Up. That sucked, you made an awesome logo for us.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
The fact that they shut this down and not the Mother project concerns me, though not for the same reasons as most everyone else. This signifies to me that they don't care about the Mother 3 hack because they aren't going to officially release it in America.
Anyway, these days everyone is guilty of infringing on IP in some way. Really, the only crime at this point is getting caught.
Everyone (everyone) on the internet commits at least a dozen copyright infringements a day.
Some people might even argue that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing, unless people are making money off it.
I don't think my avatar and sig, property of Nintendo, are costing them any money, but it could just be me. And I'm not making any money off them. Or am I?
DisruptorX2 on
0
Options
Dirty DrawersLord of the undie worldRegistered Userregular
It's possible that this could have opened an loophole for others to do possible unsavory things and Nintendo would have been held accountable since it's their software.
No, really. Seriously.
Yes, seriously.
I can see the headlines now.
"Nintendo Source Code used for evil says Government investigators"
And yes, mods are technically illegal, which is why IP law is a joke.
Oh man, you play WoW? Thanks for reminding me why I left. Seriously, do you have to be a jack ass about everything? To be a sarcastic dick about a statement that Nintendo's legal team probably made a main concern. IP law may be a joke to you, but it's not to those creating the IP's. Get off your high horse.
Almost forgot, I should say howdy to my Brawl partner in the Penny Arcade Brawl Tournament that Didn't Happen Because Most People Didn't Show Up. That sucked, you made an awesome logo for us.
Man, and I was really looking forward to that tournament, too... Stupid internets and making people not be punctual... *grumble*
It's possible that this could have opened an loophole for others to do possible unsavory things and Nintendo would have been held accountable since it's their software.
No, really. Seriously.
Yes, seriously.
I can see the headlines now.
"Nintendo Source Code used for evil says Government investigators"
And yes, mods are technically illegal, which is why IP law is a joke.
Oh man, you play WoW? Thanks for reminding me why I left. Seriously, do you have to be a jack ass about everything? To be a sarcastic dick about a statement that Nintendo's legal team probably made a main concern. IP law may be a joke to you, but it's not to those creating the IP's. Get off your high horse.
Its actually in the WoW EULA. I have to be a dick or they'll cancel my account.
It sounds to me that Nintendo was more worried about them putting in characters that made people look like Megaman or other intellectual properties that Nintendo does not have the rights to than they were worried about people changing the textures. Thats what i get out of it. I'd bet if they hadn't tried to use others intellectual properties and just made their own for kicks textures or other nintendo characters they may have been able to get away with it.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
Ok, it's been a while since I've made a dumb analogy. I think it's time.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
Anyway, these days everyone is guilty of infringing on IP in some way. Really, the only crime at this point is getting caught.
Everyone (everyone) on the internet commits at least a dozen copyright infringements a day.
Some people might even argue that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing, unless people are making money off it.
I don't think my avatar and sig, property of Nintendo, are costing them any money, but it could just be me. And I'm not making any money off them. Or am I?
If IP was only about money, than IP law would be significantly different.
It sounds to me that Nintendo was more worried about them putting in characters that made people look like Megaman or other intellectual properties that Nintendo does not have the rights to than they were worried about people changing the textures. Thats what i get out of it. I'd bet if they hadn't tried to use others intellectual properties and just made their own for kicks textures or other nintendo characters they may have been able to get away with it.
What they were really probably worried about was that it would encourage more people to homebrew/freeloader up their wiis to play with the hack and act as a gateway to piracy.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
Ok, it's been a while since I've made a dumb analogy. I think it's time.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Cliffnotes hase to pay some kind of licensing fee. That, and a lot of the work that Cliffnotes does involves written works that are in the public domain, like Shakespeare.
[Edit] We call them Coles Notes in Soviet Canuckistan. I like that name more.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
It's not even "technically not," it's "not." Unless you're planning on redistribution, you can do whatever you want with your private copy of whatever. You would not, for example, be able to scrawl in study notes and then resell copies of the book for a premium. Nintendo has any number of things that they probably don't want redistributed in this case, from copyrighted skins to the methodology to break their encryption, to publicizing and/or creating an audience educated about how to pirate their games.
And seriously guys, whining that they're not going after 'real' pirates? Sending a C&D to a pirate website is like spitting in the ocean. I'm sure they've spent far more time and effort to combat piracy than they have to shut down these guys.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
Ok, it's been a while since I've made a dumb analogy. I think it's time.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Cliffnotes have to pay some kind of licensing fee. That, and a lot of the works that Cliffnotes does involves works that are in the public domain, like Shakespeare.
Well its not our peoples fault that the homebrew games are often better than the shovelware drivel that is released en mass to the Wii console. Not saying the Wii doesn't have good games, it definitely does, but damn does it have heaps of crap released for it all the time.
Anyway, these days everyone is guilty of infringing on IP in some way. Really, the only crime at this point is getting caught.
Everyone (everyone) on the internet commits at least a dozen copyright infringements a day.
Some people might even argue that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing, unless people are making money off it.
I don't think my avatar and sig, property of Nintendo, are costing them any money, but it could just be me. And I'm not making any money off them. Or am I?
If IP was only about money, than IP law would be significantly different.
Oh, I Know. Its also about creative control and whatnot.
My patch is that you append "and, later, he discovered he was gay and they broke up" to any (non-gay) romance novel. I'm not going to bother with any legal details because there's nothing illegal about this because I own this copy of the book. Perhaps now I am liable for telling you all the secret of book modding? Pretty lame.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
Ok, it's been a while since I've made a dumb analogy. I think it's time.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Cliffnotes have to pay some kind of licensing fee. That, and a lot of the works that Cliffnotes does involves works that are in the public domain, like Shakespeare.
Well its not our peoples fault that the homebrew games are often better than the shovelware drivel that is released en mass to the Wii console. Not saying the Wii doesn't have good games, it definitely does, but damn does it have heaps of crap released for it all the time.
Oh, I didn't know ]EE[ was paying licensing fees. Sorry.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
Ok, it's been a while since I've made a dumb analogy. I think it's time.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Cliffnotes have to pay some kind of licensing fee. That, and a lot of the works that Cliffnotes does involves works that are in the public domain, like Shakespeare.
Well its not our peoples fault that the homebrew games are often better than the shovelware drivel that is released en mass to the Wii console. Not saying the Wii doesn't have good games, it definitely does, but damn does it have heaps of crap released for it all the time.
You probably mistakenly quoted me, but I'ma do this anyway.
A medium's eligibility for protection under copyright hinges on the quality of work done within that medium? o_O
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
To be honest, everything like this has probably got a C&D, it's just that generally people who do stuff like this don't really give a shit about what Nintendo think.
The Mother 3 thing, isn't that basically just a translation? I mean, it's still infringement, but it's kinda different.
I think too many do not understand the project - I think too many people think they are downloading a full ISO of the hacked game. This is a hack that you must apply to your game. Since when is giving directions illegal?
If [SE] is worried that one of their hacked models/textures is against someone's copyrights, then they should replace all characters with a middle finger - problem solved, and you'd be sending a message to Nintendo.
darren66 on
Wii U sucks, but my NNID is da66en. Steam is route66. 3DS is 2938-8099-8160.
Neo Geo Big Red owners club.
2009 PAX Puzzle Quest Champion
I have beat Rygar on the NES and many of you have not.
tell me how this can be done legally. wheater or not what ]EE[ made is legal, they knew that ill means has to be done to use it. which is why they're ok with the C&D and went with it.
I think too many do not understand the project - I think too many people think they are downloading a full ISO of the hacked game. This is a hack that you must apply to your game. Since when is giving directions illegal?
If [SE] is worried that one of their hacked models/textures is against someone's copyrights, then they should replace all characters with a middle finger - problem solved, and you'd be sending a message to Nintendo.
And yet you cannot do this without first doing things with your Wii first.
Some of the models they did, though they may have been self-made, still infringed on copyright, and if they had been found on a Brawl disc, Nintendo could be held responsible.
It's kinda stupid, but it's how IP and copyright laws work.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
It's not even "technically not," it's "not." Unless you're planning on redistribution, you can do whatever you want with your private copy of whatever. You would not, for example, be able to scrawl in study notes and then resell copies of the book for a premium. Nintendo has any number of things that they probably don't want redistributed in this case, from copyrighted skins to the methodology to break their encryption, to publicizing and/or creating an audience educated about how to pirate their games.
As far as circumventing encryption goes, I'm given to understand that's illegal whether or not you redistribute it, under the DMCA.
My patch is that you append "and, later, he discovered he was gay and they broke up" to any (non-gay) romance novel. I'm not going to bother with any legal details because there's nothing illegal about this because I own this copy of the book. Perhaps now I am liable for telling you all the secret of book modding? Pretty lame.
Are you really equating encryption breaking to penmenship?
tell me how this can be done legally. wheater or not what ]EE[ made is legal, they knew that ill means has to be done to use it. which is why they're ok with the C&D and went with it.
What we're trying to do is get ]EE[ to just release the .psd files that they used to make the palettes for the tex swaps. Because they were all made from scratch, they aren't using any Nintendo files in those .psd's. The worst infringement there is that some of the swaps are based on copyrighted characters... but then, all fanfiction, a good portion of DA, and most net forum avatars/sigs break that anyway, so no one really cares about distributing pictures for free (unless they are nudie pics, and there are no Birthday Suit Samus textures anyway).
That way, those who want the patch can build it themselves out of the .psd's.
My patch is that you append "and, later, he discovered he was gay and they broke up" to any (non-gay) romance novel. I'm not going to bother with any legal details because there's nothing illegal about this because I own this copy of the book. Perhaps now I am liable for telling you all the secret of book modding? Pretty lame.
Are you really equating encryption breaking to penmenship?
It is just very easy encryption to break, like Palin's password olol. You need a pencil.
But seriously, the whole encryption breaking thing really just sounds like a bullshit technicality. Like I am sure there are RAMIFICATIONS for government security that made the law to start with, but this is basically threatening legal action because some guys turned mario blue, which I find ridiculous.
ok this is getting annoying people are arguing the patch, and people defend with piracy in general, and others retort with copyright infringment, and others say they're all wrong about digital media backups.
i'm sure we all agree on certain points, but there's too many arguments going on in here to know who's talking specifically about what
Typical nintendo. These modders should concentrate on companies that take a friendlier stance to mods, or at least looks the other way.
Like Sony and Microsoft.
No, like Valve.
...my point was that none of the consoles are exactly friendly to modders, and haven't been for, well, ever. The only question is, altruistic intentions from these guys aside, why is anyone surprised?
The worst infringement there is that some of the swaps are based on copyrighted characters... but then, all fanfiction, a good portion of DA, and most net forum avatars/sigs break that anyway, so no one really cares about distributing pictures for free (unless they are nudie pics, and there are no Birthday Suit Samus textures anyway).
And now we see yet another reason why these guys got hit with the cease and desist. This thing could potentially get Nintendo into trouble with OTHER companies. And this is a wee bit different than fanfiction, since the courts could actually hold Nintendo liable if, say, Master Chief were inserted into a Smash Bros. mod.
The Mother 3 thing, isn't that basically just a translation? I mean, it's still infringement, but it's kinda different.
Actually, translations are not different. If they were translating it into sign language for the otherwise disabled (depending on how you define cinematographic works), or if it was for an educational institution, then it would be exempt, but a translation project like the Mother 3 thing is totally infringing.
This is all based on the Canadian Copyright Act by the by. I dunno how it works for you yanks, but I bet it's similar.
Typical nintendo. These modders should concentrate on companies that take a friendlier stance to mods, or at least looks the other way.
Like Sony and Microsoft.
No, like Valve.
...my point was that none of the consoles are exactly friendly to modders, and haven't been for, well, ever. The only question is, altruistic intentions from these guys aside, why is anyone surprised?
Consoles aren't friendly for modders because the hardware isn't friendly. Hell, hard drives being standard in consoles is a new thing.
Is it illegal for me to write or draw pictures in some books I bought?
Technically not, because you're not altering the work, per say. That is, you're not altering the text or layout of the original volume. An argument could be made that you're adapting the work to a different medium, if the pictures were derivative works, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. 'Sides, you're not communicating your drawings/book, which means that any alterations could fall under fair dealings/use exceptions.
That it is only "technically not" has me worried, to be honest.
It's not even "technically not," it's "not." Unless you're planning on redistribution, you can do whatever you want with your private copy of whatever. You would not, for example, be able to scrawl in study notes and then resell copies of the book for a premium. Nintendo has any number of things that they probably don't want redistributed in this case, from copyrighted skins to the methodology to break their encryption, to publicizing and/or creating an audience educated about how to pirate their games.
As far as circumventing encryption goes, I'm given to understand that's illegal whether or not you redistribute it, under the DMCA.
But for something as minor as cosmetic modifications, it is likely protected by fair use. Therefore it's not clear cut until the courts decide, and there's no way any company would take a legitimate owner of a piece of software to court and risk the DMCA being weakened.
tell me how this can be done legally. wheater or not what ]EE[ made is legal, they knew that ill means has to be done to use it. which is why they're ok with the C&D and went with it.
What we're trying to do is get ]EE[ to just release the .psd files that they used to make the palettes for the tex swaps. Because they were all made from scratch, they aren't using any Nintendo files in those .psd's. The worst infringement there is that some of the swaps are based on copyrighted characters... but then, all fanfiction, a good portion of DA, and most net forum avatars/sigs break that anyway, so no one really cares about distributing pictures for free (unless they are nudie pics, and there are no Birthday Suit Samus textures anyway).
That way, those who want the patch can build it themselves out of the .psd's.
But ]EE[ knows what's going to be done with them, and now that Nintendo is saying "don't" ]EE[ replied with ok.
Posts
It is a good thing, unless people are making money off it.
I don't think my avatar and sig, property of Nintendo, are costing them any money, but it could just be me. And I'm not making any money off them. Or am I?
Oh man, you play WoW? Thanks for reminding me why I left. Seriously, do you have to be a jack ass about everything? To be a sarcastic dick about a statement that Nintendo's legal team probably made a main concern. IP law may be a joke to you, but it's not to those creating the IP's. Get off your high horse.
Its actually in the WoW EULA. I have to be a dick or they'll cancel my account.
Writing in your own book? Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmmm, making them all do the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call them cliffnotes. Let me sort out the legal details and start distributing these things.
Ooooh, brawl textures. Neat. Wow, this really makes the experience better. I think I'll share it with others. Hmmm, making them do all the same work I did to get my results... why not just release a pack that helps others have what I made? I'll call it a patch. Let me sort out the legal details by leaving a message on my wall saying call me if you mind. Oh they called me. Nevermind.
If IP was only about money, than IP law would be significantly different.
What they were really probably worried about was that it would encourage more people to homebrew/freeloader up their wiis to play with the hack and act as a gateway to piracy.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Cliffnotes hase to pay some kind of licensing fee. That, and a lot of the work that Cliffnotes does involves written works that are in the public domain, like Shakespeare.
[Edit] We call them Coles Notes in Soviet Canuckistan. I like that name more.
It's not even "technically not," it's "not." Unless you're planning on redistribution, you can do whatever you want with your private copy of whatever. You would not, for example, be able to scrawl in study notes and then resell copies of the book for a premium. Nintendo has any number of things that they probably don't want redistributed in this case, from copyrighted skins to the methodology to break their encryption, to publicizing and/or creating an audience educated about how to pirate their games.
And seriously guys, whining that they're not going after 'real' pirates? Sending a C&D to a pirate website is like spitting in the ocean. I'm sure they've spent far more time and effort to combat piracy than they have to shut down these guys.
Well its not our peoples fault that the homebrew games are often better than the shovelware drivel that is released en mass to the Wii console. Not saying the Wii doesn't have good games, it definitely does, but damn does it have heaps of crap released for it all the time.
Oh, I Know. Its also about creative control and whatnot.
You probably mistakenly quoted me, but I'ma do this anyway.
A medium's eligibility for protection under copyright hinges on the quality of work done within that medium? o_O
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
Well sounds like they fucking got what they deserved.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
The Mother 3 thing, isn't that basically just a translation? I mean, it's still infringement, but it's kinda different.
If [SE] is worried that one of their hacked models/textures is against someone's copyrights, then they should replace all characters with a middle finger - problem solved, and you'd be sending a message to Nintendo.
Neo Geo Big Red owners club.
2009 PAX Puzzle Quest Champion
I have beat Rygar on the NES and many of you have not.
...told to stop? You make it sound so dramatic.
And yet you cannot do this without first doing things with your Wii first.
Some of the models they did, though they may have been self-made, still infringed on copyright, and if they had been found on a Brawl disc, Nintendo could be held responsible.
It's kinda stupid, but it's how IP and copyright laws work.
As far as circumventing encryption goes, I'm given to understand that's illegal whether or not you redistribute it, under the DMCA.
Are you really equating encryption breaking to penmenship?
Like Sony and Microsoft.
No, like Valve.
That way, those who want the patch can build it themselves out of the .psd's.
It is just very easy encryption to break, like Palin's password olol. You need a pencil.
But seriously, the whole encryption breaking thing really just sounds like a bullshit technicality. Like I am sure there are RAMIFICATIONS for government security that made the law to start with, but this is basically threatening legal action because some guys turned mario blue, which I find ridiculous.
i'm sure we all agree on certain points, but there's too many arguments going on in here to know who's talking specifically about what
...my point was that none of the consoles are exactly friendly to modders, and haven't been for, well, ever. The only question is, altruistic intentions from these guys aside, why is anyone surprised?
Edit:
And now we see yet another reason why these guys got hit with the cease and desist. This thing could potentially get Nintendo into trouble with OTHER companies. And this is a wee bit different than fanfiction, since the courts could actually hold Nintendo liable if, say, Master Chief were inserted into a Smash Bros. mod.
Actually, translations are not different. If they were translating it into sign language for the otherwise disabled (depending on how you define cinematographic works), or if it was for an educational institution, then it would be exempt, but a translation project like the Mother 3 thing is totally infringing.
This is all based on the Canadian Copyright Act by the by. I dunno how it works for you yanks, but I bet it's similar.
I'm glad this happened. Maybe these guys can come over to our side, and do some nice work for a good PC mod.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Consoles aren't friendly for modders because the hardware isn't friendly. Hell, hard drives being standard in consoles is a new thing.
But for something as minor as cosmetic modifications, it is likely protected by fair use. Therefore it's not clear cut until the courts decide, and there's no way any company would take a legitimate owner of a piece of software to court and risk the DMCA being weakened.
You're better off loading up the G.E.C.K. and impressing a community then devoting yourself to simple esthetics.
Maybe these modders weren't interested in making sex mods or anime faces.