But how is it deemed illegal when Nintendo "loses" pre-release games in the wild and somebody "finds" it and shows it off on YouTube? Game reviewers are bound by NDAs and have contracts with Ninty - but these "criminals" don't. So what's the crime here? Publishing something Ninty didn't want to get out yet? And how is this copyright infringement when he never stated that he's made a Mario game? Or is trying to sell Mario-themed stuff? It's an official game from Ninty, so what does this have to do with copyright? Where did he copy it?
Same with the "circumvention" ... if you can easily make a copy of the key from your own device - which you've legally bought and where you only need a paper clip to do it - what are you circumventing then? If you buy a lock, it usually comes with the keys on a keyring that's "locked" to the loop. Is removing a key from that keyring also "circumventing" then?
The big problem here is that most people doing law have no idea about the technical stuff. And until that changes we'll see lots of these ridiculous claims going through.
I really hate how circumventing protection measures on their own device is considered illegal. It's my device, I should be allowed to do what I want.
Even the term "protection measures" annoys me, as it tries to protect their interests on my device.
Also, linking to an emulator should not be considered "trafficking circumvention devices". Making circumvention devices illegal is bad enough.
But the streamer is an idiot too as he was publicly streaming cracked games pre release. Streaming any game can be considered copyright infringement, although it's usually not enforced (it's free advertisement).
save