What happened
GitHub posted a DMCA request from Nintendo of America confirming that a network of 144 repositories, including the parent, was taken down. The targeted firmware was for modchips including SX Core, SX Lite, Picofly, and HWFLY.
The notice is dated November 6. According to TorrentFreak, GitHub published it on Tuesday, November 10. The notice names a single repository, Ansem-SoD/Picofly, which TorrentFreak describes as offering information and firmware for a Switch modchip based on the RP2040-Zero board.
TorrentFreak says this is the first time Nintendo has targeted modchip firmware on GitHub. Its basis is that none of the 90 earlier Nintendo notices in GitHub's public archive mention modchips. This is a statement about the archive, not proof about everything Nintendo has ever done. Nintendo's earlier GitHub notices mostly went after emulators, key-dumping tools and sigpatches.
Why one notice became 144 repositories
Nintendo did not list 144 repositories. GitHub's DMCA archive explains the mechanism:
- Nintendo said the entire parent repository was infringing.
- The fork network was larger than 100 repositories.
- Nintendo's notice included a sworn statement that, based on a representative sample of forks it reviewed, all or most were infringing to the same extent as the parent.
- GitHub therefore processed the notice against the whole network, 144 repositories including the parent.
GitHub's README describes this as its approach for networks over 100 repositories, which it says would be difficult to review one by one. GitHub also says it contacted the owners of "some or all" of the affected repositories. It gave them a chance to make changes and told them how to file a counter notice.
Forks can differ from their parent, and GitHub's notice form asks submitters to list each fork separately. The sampling statement is how a notice gets around that requirement. Whether every fork actually contained the same firmware is unverified.
What Nintendo alleges
These are claims in a takedown notice, not findings by a court.
- Nintendo says the Switch's technological protection measures include the console boot sequence and various cryptographic signatures. It says the console can't be used until the boot sequence is verified and decrypted with Nintendo's keys.
- It says the repositories offer, link to, or provide access to modchip firmware that bypasses that boot sequence. In its words, the firmware lets modchips "illegally circumvent Nintendo's TPMs" to run illegal copies of games.
- It cites the anti-circumvention provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and (2) and the U.S. criminal case No. 2:20-cr-00127-RSL.
- It marks the work as not released under an open-source license and asks for the reported content to be removed.
That criminal case is the Team-Xecuter prosecution. TorrentFreak reports that Gary Bowser pleaded guilty to conspiring to circumvent technological measures and to trafficking in circumvention devices. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison. The other two defendants, including alleged leader Max Louarn, have not appeared in U.S. court as far as TorrentFreak knows.
TorrentFreak stresses that Bowser's plea is not a court ruling on modchip firmware. It adds that at the takedown stage Nintendo doesn't need one, and that GitHub appears to have processed the notice regardless. Videogameschronicle makes the same point.
What a takedown does and doesn't establish
GitHub's README says a posted notice only means GitHub received it on that date. It does not mean the content was unlawful. GitHub says it makes no judgment on the merits of the claims.
For anyone running a repository on GitHub, that distinction matters:
- A DMCA takedown is a platform process. It is not a legal finding.
- A repository owner who thinks content was disabled by mistake can file a counter notice. GitHub says it then waits 10–14 days and re-enables the content unless the complainant starts legal action first.
- A counter notice is a legal statement. It carries risk, and GitHub advises getting legal advice.
- Reinstatement is not guaranteed.
As of TorrentFreak's Wednesday check, the Picofly parent page showed GitHub's standard takedown message. GitHub's archive showed no counter notice for this action. That is a snapshot and may have changed.
What remains online and what it means for users
TorrentFreak reported that several other GitHub repositories with Picofly and HWFLY firmware were still online. One of them is described by a GBAtemp forum user as the original Picofly source. That identification is the forum user's claim and is not independently verified. None of these repositories were named in Nintendo's notice.
TweakTown reports that chips already installed keep working but owners lose an easy source for updates and for flashing new chips. TweakTown also reports that modchips are used for homebrew, emulation, alternative operating systems and overclocking, uses Nintendo's notice doesn't mention. The notices and TorrentFreak report I reviewed do not independently verify the device-by-device effects. Treat those practical consequences as TweakTown's reporting.
The same-day notices
TorrentFreak lists three other Nintendo notices from the same date:
| Repository | Project | Repos | Status (per TorrentFreak) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ansem-SoD/Picofly | Picofly firmware | 144 | Disabled |
| citron-neo/emulator | Citron Neo | 71 | Forks disabled |
| IpwnedU/yuzu-mainline-master | yuzu | 1 | Code removed |
| IpwnedU/yuzu-android-master | yuzu | 1 | Code removed |
The two yuzu repositories still exist. Their owner removed the code and cleared the commit history, and they now only host a README pointing to the Internet Archive. These are separate actions from the modchip takedown.
Analysis
This section is my own reading, not drawn from the sources.
The firmware is the new angle. Earlier notices went after emulators and key-dumping tools. Here the targeted code runs on a microcontroller soldered into hardware. Nintendo's anti-circumvention argument rests on the boot sequence being a protection measure, and firmware that glitches it fits that framing. Whether a court would agree has not been tested.
Hosting open firmware on GitHub carries platform risk. Anyone publishing hardware-adjacent projects that touch DRM should know about the fork-network rule. If a notice claims the whole parent is infringing, forks can go with it.
Takedowns are not erasure. The surviving repositories show the limits of this approach. Mirrors, other hosts and community forums can keep the code available.
Counterpoint. Nintendo's position is that this firmware exists to defeat console protections so pirated games can run. That is the same reasoning behind the Team-Xecuter prosecution. Critics note that the notice ignores the legitimate uses of modchips.
Bottom line
- GitHub disabled 144 Picofly-related repositories after a November 6 Nintendo notice that named only one.
- The fork-network rule, not individual review, explains the count.
- The takedown is a platform action and not a court ruling on the firmware's legality.
- Other Picofly and HWFLY repositories were still online as of TorrentFreak's check, and the owner of the disabled network can still file a counter notice.