Following a notice dated November 6, 2026 from Nintendo of America, GitHub disabled 144 repositories related to "Picofly." The targets were distribution sites for firmware used with modification chips installed in the original Nintendo Switch, and the 144 include repositories derived from the parent repository. Nintendo claims the software bypasses the console's protections and makes it possible to run pirated games. Under U.S. law, the act of circumventing protections as a user and the act of providing the means to do so are regulated separately, and that distinction is key to understanding this action.
A notice aimed at the software that runs the chips
The notice named a single GitHub repository, "Ansem-SoD/Picofly." Nintendo did not claim that removing some problematic portion would be enough; it stated that the repository as a whole is infringing. It cited the provision of firmware, links, and other means of access as the problem.
A modification chip is a physical component added to the console, and firmware is the software that controls its operation. The notice gave SX Core and SX Lite as examples of the chips concerned, and also mentioned Picofly and HWFLY. What was disabled on GitHub this time was the distribution sites for software that runs such chips.
According to Nintendo, the Switch uses boot-time procedures and cryptographic signatures to restrict the execution of unauthorized software. The company claimed that the firmware in question bypasses the boot sequence and allows pirated copies of protected games to run. It cited games such as "Animal Crossing: New Horizons" as examples of protected titles. These descriptions of circumvention and infringement are the claims of Nintendo, which issued the notice.
How the notice reached 144 forks
The notice named one parent, but GitHub's public note says it processed 144 repositories including the parent. The rest are "forks," copies derived from the parent's code. The figure 144 is the number of repositories processed, not a count of 144 independent tools.
Under GitHub's policy, disabling a parent does not normally disable its forks automatically. Forks may be owned by different people, who may modify the code or use it under different licenses or for different purposes. A claim against the parent alone does not reveal the circumstances of each downstream copy.
However, a different rule applies when a network exceeds 100 repositories and reviewing each one individually is difficult. If the claimant reviews a representative sample of forks and swears that all or most of them contain infringement to a similar degree, GitHub will consider disabling them together. The note on this case explains that the action was taken under that condition. The published number of processed repositories does not reveal how the code differs in each fork.
This mechanism extended the effect of a notice naming one parent to a network of related distribution sites. The number represents the scope GitHub processed, not the number of cases in which a court ruled on each one's use or code.
Homebrew uses, and the legal difference over distribution
Modification chips can also be used to run homebrew software. But the purpose for which a user circumvents protections and whether distributing the means to others is permitted are not the same question. Section 1201 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which Nintendo cited in its notice, treats the two separately.
Section 1201(a)(1)(A) covers the act of circumventing an effective access control. Section 1201(a)(2), by contrast, covers technology primarily designed or produced for that circumvention, addressing its manufacture, import, offering to the public, and so on. The text lists not only sale but also offering. The provisions to check differ for a user's own actions and for the conduct of those distributing the means of circumvention.
Section 1201(a)(1) also includes a mechanism for setting exemptions for users by category of work. But Section 1201(a)(1)(E) provides that those exemptions and determinations cannot be used as a defense to enforcement of provisions other than (a)(1). In other words, saying that a category-based exemption exists for a particular use does not resolve the question of providing under (a)(2).
On the other hand, Section 1201(f) contains a conditional provision permitting certain analysis and the development and provision of means for the interoperability of independently created programs. Separate from the category-based exemptions for users, the applicable provisions and conditions need to be checked. What is described here is the structure of U.S. law; this notice alone does not settle which provision applies to a given piece of firmware or act of providing it.
In reading this notice, in addition to these differences in statutory text, GitHub's action and past cases must also be kept apart. Use, distribution of circumvention technology, disabling of a host's repositories, and criminal cases differ in what must be proven and in procedure.
GitHub's review and past criminal cases are separate processes
GitHub has said that when it receives a claim concerning circumvention, experts in both technology and law review it. Where a determination is unclear, it says it will resolve doubts in favor of the developer and leave the content up, and it will try to contact the developer before disabling. It also takes into account any response received from the developer after disabling.
According to the note on this notice, GitHub gave the owners of some or all of the repositories an opportunity to fix the problem, along with information about filing a counter-notice. How its experts reviewed each repository has not been made public. A disabling is a measure a host takes under its policies and differs in procedure from a court's determination of the lawfulness of each item.
If a counter-notice, for example one alleging a mistake, meets the requirements, GitHub forwards it to the rights holder. If the rights holder does not notify GitHub within 10 to 14 days of a copy of a complaint filed in an appropriate court or similar proof, GitHub has a procedure for re-enabling the content. The owner's response can also change what remains public afterward.
Nintendo's notice also cited the earlier Team-Xecuter case. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Gary Bowser pleaded guilty in October 2021 to conspiracy to circumvent protections and traffic in circumvention devices, and to trafficking in circumvention devices. The Justice Department announced on February 10, 2022 that he had been sentenced to 40 months.
That was a criminal case concerning a specific person's conduct. The Justice Department's announcement does not describe the specific repositories at issue in 2026 as the subject of its proceedings. When linking the past guilty plea to GitHub's disabling this time, it is necessary to separate whose conduct was judged, which conduct, and through what procedure.
| What to check | Basis | Relevance to this case |
|---|---|---|
| A user's act of circumventing protections | U.S. Copyright Act §1201(a)(1) | Covers the act of use and exemptions by category of work |
| The act of providing circumvention technology | §1201(a)(2) and (f) | Check the provision on offering, and the conditional provision on interoperability |
| GitHub's disabling | Nintendo's notice and GitHub's policy | Shows the processing of 144 repositories and the review and counter-notice procedures |
| Bowser's guilty plea | U.S. Department of Justice announcement | Concerns his own criminal case; not a determination about each repository at issue here |
Note: Compares the targets of U.S. law and each public source. Application of exemptions to individual firmware is undetermined.
When judging the remaining distributed material, similar names are not enough. One needs to check the content of the code and who provided it under what conditions.
How to gauge the effect on distribution channels
The direct change this time is that the targeted repositories on GitHub can no longer be accessed. Disabling a repository is not an operation that stops chips already installed in consoles. For people who relied on those distribution sites, the issue is whether they can still obtain the firmware needed for installation and updates.
TorrentFreak reported that, at the time of its reporting on November 11, other Picofly and HWFLY distribution repositories remained. That is an observation from that time and does not show the current state of all distribution sites. Individual effects on chips already installed or on updating actual devices also cannot be determined from public materials.
How far the disabling affects future installation and updates will depend on whether other distribution sites continue and whether counter-notices restore the targeted repositories. Beyond the figure of 144 processed, tracking subsequent distribution and restoration will provide the basis for judgment.