Full Screen Mario Web Game Closed Down Following Nintendo's Copyright Complaint

I don't know whether to be happy or sad...

I have a hard time understanding why that game in particular got so much atention so quickly from nintendo. Dont get me wrong, it deserved everything it got, but you can find emulated version of SMB pretty much on every second web page nowadays, be it flash based copys, java powered emulators etc.
Was it the URL itself that got them in trouble in the first place ?
My point is: people sell emulators oficially on some app stores which is stricktly prohibited (emulators are fine as long as you dont make money with them) or sell directly emulated games and no one cares. Wouldnt that be a much better target for lawsuits, since these people actually make money off of other peoples work instead of a simple web based emulated version ?
Like i said, this thing wasnt right in the first place, but it also did no harm other than that scum you find on said app stores.

They really should've added this to their advantage, put his work on the eShop or have Nintendo put it on their website. It's a missed opportunity on their part.

You can't make a game based on an ip someone else owns... he surely knew this would happen.

@Dpishere There is probably loads of mobile wanna be publishers who will likely give him work if that was his goal. (It was opensource anyway so it still exists).

What he should do is make it into a parody (Ideally an unfamily friendly one) and see what happens with that. Get some good levels from somewhere else like some of the mod's for New Super Mario Bros Wii.

http://www.pixelprospector.com/mushroom-kingdom-fusion thats probably a more interesting project than the direct clone this was anyway. Controls are rubbish though which spoils it.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/05/video_mega_man_unlimited_the_fan_game_that_looks_as_good_as_the_real_thing

Funny how Nintendo Life reports differently on the exact same violation of copyright.

If it is copyright (The sprites were different they were not ripped from the original).

@unrandomsam
I don't think a direct copy that infringes on a product still being sold legally by the creators is "the exact same violation of copyright" as a completely unique fan game based on a property owned by a company that encourages such fan games (and has even given an official stamp of approval to one), but what do I know? I actually bothered to read the articles.

EDIT: I'm referring to comment #9, by the way. Please don't post multiple times in short succession.

Nintendo should've hired the maker of this instead of shutting it down, then he could've done a port of it to the Wii U and it would've been very well received. Ninty's turning down free money.

It's stupid he wasn't making any money off it.

Well, this is what I figured would happen... I'm not at all surprised...

@UnknownNico The site was great, but though I tried it a few times keyboard controls were an excercise in frustration. I'm fine with it being gone, we knew it would happen.

@RPG_KING If he was that would be illegal gain and he would be sued

They creators of this remake should've known Nintendo would do this. I would be surprised if people were surprised that this happened. I would've done the same if I were Nintendo.

Now... why don't they go after all the tablets and other products that is using Nintendo IPs as a selling point for their products.

@SanderEvers That version was wide-screen and had a level editor.

Same thing happened with Super Mario Bros. X.

Its fairly common for companies to say informally to people they can do stuff. Then when it is finished and actually any good then they DMCA it.
(Streets of Rage Remake is a good example. 96 levels. Brilliant quality).

(All the art for that was from scratch and it took years and to start with Sega said fine.)

Nintendo is right to protect their copyright, but stupid not to adopt a more liberal view of copyright like Valve does. If Valve had Nintendo's mindset towards this sort of things, they wouldn't own Counter-Strike, Dota 2, etc.

Completely in Nintendo's rights. Unlike other fan-made games which in most cases use the game's assets to make a different game, this was just a direct, unlicensed port of a game that Nintendo is still making money off.

Still, which I got around to trying it out before it was taken down...

The guy had a Donate button on his site. BIG mistake

What made this iteration so special?

@EdJericho I totally forgot about Christian Whitehead. That is a prime example of what Nintendo can and should've done.

The Github is still there which is the important thing anyway.

Funny how things are getting more and more restrictive when it comes to computers. If the reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS had happened today I think the result might have been different.

80's Arcade games ripped off anything they felt like.

Good. Next.

Good news, people should get their own ideas and be a bit more creative.

They were well within their rights (and obligated) to act on it but they could probably have handled things a bit differently. The guy obviously cared enough to put the effort into it, they could have worked with him as a part of their plan to spread to other platforms or something.

@Hyperstar96 What he means is that this guy was asking for money for a project he wasn't supposed to make any money from.

Just buy this game legally through the Virtual Console services and you are set to play it forever

_{Discussion of means otherwise is against our rules. -Lz}

"FullScreenMario.com has been found in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and on Friday, November 1st was taken down by an official DMCA complaint from Nintendo."

The arrogant fool makes it sound as though he's surprised it's been found in violation of the DMCA. I mean what did he expect to happen?!

@Hyperstar96 Whoa, there! Listen to Darkwing Duck, the terror that flaps in the night. He speaks the truth!

@Hyperstar96 It has been explained time and time again in this very comments section as to why this was taken down and was directly in violation of copyright laws, It wasn't a "new" game which reused assets it was the SAME game (Not to mention the whole donation button meaning that yes he was in fact profiting from the game) that Nintendo is still selling on the Virtual Console,

Taking great ideas is fine, if he wanted to make a 2D side scroller inspired by Mario and do what he did then that would be AMAZING but he can't take Mario and do it because he simply doesn't own the rights

@Tasuki Eh, they still technically can shut it down because it violates trademarks. However, it doesn't really stop sales except VC sales or harm Nintendo in any way.

Hi guys!

I just wanted to point out how different some of your reactions were over here: https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/05/nyan_cat_keyboard_cat_meme_creators_suing_over_appearance_in_scribblenauts

@MrSRArter

Hire? Why even bother. They could do it themselves, and from what I hear, it would probably be 1,000x better.

Nintendo: right. Current state of copyright law: wrong.

But really, changing the front page of the site while all the code remains on github is akin to putting a 'closed' sign on the front door of a shop, while it continues to operate out of the door around the side.

Still, everyone wins: Nintendo and the FSM.com creator both get publicity, and the general public can continue to play it if they really want to.

But, copyright laws, right? This is the real issue.
This focus on individual infringements shows a tacit approval of the current bad state of copyright, and how it's been twisted from its original goals.

Corporations are quick to explain how important copyright is, but they never explain the equally important concept of the public domain.
That's something I'd like to see addressed in the next interview with a Nintendo VP.

I understand Nintendos justification, although it does seem harmless in this case, the implications for something like this could be damaging to any company. They have to protect brand image yet at the same time, Josh didn't mean to cause any harm with it. It does generate publicity for both parties!

@Tasuki Not necessarily. Copyright law is massive and can be used to file suits even against concepts. It is the blatent similarity (I think) that got poor Josh in trouble. Regardless of money, there is a great deal of thought put into patent law and the protection of brands or products. I understand what you mean about making money though, he didn't do it to get rich.

@RPG_KING So what? If I'd be standing on the streets, giving away free copies of Super Mario 3D World, Battlefield 4 and Assassin's Creed IV, that would be ok?
Nobody cares if somebody makes money off it. The reason it's been taken down is that it gives away something for free, that the rightful owner (Nintendo) is still selling for money, thus potentially damaging their business.

Sad to see this dissolve like this (just like Nintendo's entire Donkey Kong Country trilogy on VC). A good idea gone to waste. Oh well, maybe the guy could just remake this web game again but this time with his own IP instead. Seems Nintendo knows how to get rid of games more than they know to make them nowadays.

@KeeperBvK You paid for the game,yes? then you have to right to give it away or sell it. That's the first sale doctorine...

@RPG_KING
Blablabla, first sale doctrine. First: Learn to spell if you're using big words. Doctrine has nothing to do with a doctor. Second: I wasn't talking about legally bought copies, obviously, but about copies I made myself. Why would I be talking about copies I bought myself? The guy behind that online Mario game surely hasn't bought 2.7 million copies of SMB. Still, he had that many people play the game for free.

I'm fine with its removal, since it is copyright infringement and Nintendo is protective of their brand, but the popularity of this should have made Nintendo think, "Geez, people sure do love the original Mario with a random level generator. Could you imagine the replay value of a remix mode like that?" But we'll most likely never see it. And maybe it's for the better, since what we expect in Mario is extremely well-tuned and designed levels more than just simply the quantity of levels.

@Antisham But yet Zynga does what they do and has the lawyers to protect it.

@Tryken How is it copyright infringement ? (The sprites are done from scratch and it is his own code). Copyright infringement would be using Nintendo's rom or some of Nintendo's assets. (Not sure about the Music I don't have a NES to compare it to).

@unrandomsam Copyright infringement is much more than you think. Concepts and resemblance are BIG factors of infringement law, both of which were portrayed on this website. Don't get me wrong, it sucks that Nintendo shut it down, but I can guarantee you that they did it in their best interests, lawsuit or not.

@Tryken Well said! I do think that level design would be diluted badly if they did release an official game like this. The original levels created by the game designers are always so well thought out, it would be a shame to see them become over used and stale.

@Conellossus Actually that was a fib by the team so they could close the project and go work on Terraria.

Also, anyone saying Nintendo could have hired this guy doesn't seem to understand how anything works.

Bad publicity is better than no publicity I guess. Throw us another crazy one, Nintendo.

If he wanted to emulate Super Mario Bros., he should have used the base game as a foundation/inspiration, branched off into something else, then officially copyleft the resulting source code. He must have known he was going to run into copyright issues- he has the skills, why not develop a copylefted product instead? (Unless he had the intention of directly profiting... there was no purpose for charging into a copyright risk.) It's not a problem to ask for donations if people like his work, just don't rely so heavily on using other people's properties for your own work.

@Antisham As far as I know copyright protects the original program code and assets. Patents and trademarks other parts. Zynga gets away with loads of stuff. And Nintendo did the exact same thing themselves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_TV_Game (Ripping off pong).

@unrandomsam I think you misunderstand the whole agenda. Copyright DOES protect program code, but that doesn't exclude a plethora of other things: concepts, music, character similarity etc. So no matter if he used his own code or not, he did not copyright that for himself and on top of that, he broke copyright law in other forms against Nintendo. Nintendo actually paid licensing fees to Atari to create a pong clone, they did not rip it off, you can research that yourself and find out if you like. And as for Zynga, they do get in trouble for copyrighting as well, although they have the money and time to fight it back and almost get away with it. Plus, they don't have direct clones of games, they alter a game style and concept so much that they can argue it is original. They might be a pretty lame company for doing it though, I agree with that.

I forgot about this until now, but Notch who made Minecraft also made an open-source Mario clone in Java called 'Infinite Mario Bros': http://www.mojang.com/notch/mario/ (He even says on the page "Please don't sue me, Nintendo!")
And someone else ported it to HTML5: http://rawrbitrary.com/arcade/infinite-mario-bros-in-html5/ (which has been online a lot longer than fullscreenmario).

The site is now under construction.