For those of you that weren't aware, the Pokémon Company recently sued a fan over alleged copyright infringement. Here's the breakdown of what happened: A Seattle Café owner named Ramar Larkin Jones was going to be throwing a Pokémon themed party at his café, the Pokémon Company slapped him with a lawsuit, and the two parties supposedly managed to agree to a settlement. Jones was unable to pay the settlement and set up a crowdfunding campaign which successfully had managed to accrue the funds. Unfortunately for him, the Pokémon Company has now withdrawn the settlement, evidently as a result of his painting the Pokémon Company in a bad light.
According to Jones, the settlement was originally proposed by the Pokémon Company and there's allegedly documentation to prove that a deal had been made. Game Informer recently covered the story and Jones reached out to them via email:
We had agreed to a settlement once the story broke on motherboard we got a email saying they were pulling the offer because I was bad mouthing them tho I was not. The lawyer I was working with is trying to get them to put the settlement back on the table so that we can be done with this entire thing. we should no by the end of the day. We have the emails going back and fourth where their lawyers say we have a deal.
What do you think? Is Jones being entirely honest about the situation? Who do you think will win the case? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
[source gameinformer.com]
Comments 141
cool. hopefully the cafe doesn't have to close down.
I'm really curious what the outcome of this is gonna be. I don't think his chances are very good, though...
@Uberchu The café isn't off the hook. The settlement has been rescinded, and they retain the right to pursue legal action. Which is exactly why everyone refrains from commenting on ongoing legal matters.
I see this exactly as if he was bad mouthing The Pokemon Company. He STOLE the IP. Regardless of the usage. He then Charged for access to the event that he themed around that IP. Then he gets stopped, after 5 YEARS of this, and gets sued. Then complains about it online to get other people to pay for him. It is disgusting that people seem to think this was an acceptable use of The Pokemon Companys property.
@Yorumi
It isnt that. I am not saying the poster was worth the sue. It was the Entire Event. And there was NOTHING parody involved. It was Willful Illegal Usage.
If he's having trouble paying off $400 dollars, then how's he paying his lawyer? I'd understand if it's about principal, but he was saying before how he needed a payment plan, because he couldn't pay it off right away.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, he coukd be family or something. No need to jump to conclusions.
"we should NO by the end of the day"
Lmfao. Things are looking bright for this lad.
Pokemon Company is likely planning something far worse. Like steamrolling his store. Or borrowing Nintendo's group of Yakuza members.
woo if that settlement got pulled he could be ruined....dude don't talk about litigation until its over (and even then you better have a lawyer to do damage control if you say something stupid). I would be shocked if he didn't say something bad as most would be quick to roast the company protecting its ip. If he didn't then hopefuly his lawyer can get the settlement back...
I wonder if the comments and the negative press and the damage control that TPC is going to do is the reason for the settlement withdrawal. As normally you don't go crowd fund when you get sued especially with public comments sections.
@Nicolai I think it was 4000 not 400. Although, if I recall correctly his gofundme account has already passed its goal, so he shouldn't be struggling on paying it.
I think he needs an English class, to be honest.
How do people sell fan art at comic conventions? People make plenty money off other IPs. Can someone please tell me the legal way they do this? Thanks!
@Aromaiden Oh wow, that much? Still, if he's paying his lawyer, the lawyer is going to cost him a lot.
The Pokemon Company is fine with fanpics and doujin being sold mostly if it's pokemon trainers showing up in them. But if Pokemons start to show up a lot they decide to strike.
@LyonHart This annoyed me... a lot...
@lanceorr They do so by making original works based off the IPs. There was actually a big todo about a Brony artist not too long ago who was caught tracing art assets from the show and using that traced art in merchandise. I actually knew the guy and I believe him when he said he didn't realize he was doing something wrong. He was actually pretty lucky that Hasbro didn't go after him like The Pokemon Company is doing here.
I think the main thing is this guy not only used official art assets for the advertising but he also used the event to make money via the tickets and probably whatever business it brought to his cafe. I personally think a C&D would have been more than enough here. That said I only minimally feel bad for the guy. It was an unfair situation to find himself in, but I really don't like how he's handled it. He's literally gotten other people to pay for his wrongdoing and now he's basically been told "you can't do that now". In this situation both sides lose no matter what.
The amount that The Pokemon Company was suing for was $4,000. Ramar set up a Gofundme site to raise the money. I'd suggest reading the site to see how you feel about his behavior.
https://www.gofundme.com/ng5f2ukk
Personally, I think he handled the issue immaturely and could have raised the money without having to cast TPC as the bad guys. His lawyer did him a disservice if he didn't advise him to be more discreet about raising the settlement money.
I sorta feel that nether side is blameless in this whole thing.
Wow...Looks like things could possibly hit the fan even more for this guy.
As mentioned above, how does this not target things like fan art and cosplay? Edit: Explained above. Why are ripped Pokemon sprites not being pulled down off of unauthorized sites?
The only way this could make any sense to me is because this was infringed upon by a business. The cease and desist notice? Fine. The fine itself? Insane.
hey alex, splatoon.nintendo.net has updated their website to be more of a multi-player hub for your twitter and NNID freinds where you can schedule battles and view rank, level, and gear.
I feel bad for the guy, but he is totally in the wrong. Like others have said, he shouldn't have made it public first of all. But I'd imagine the majority of visitors to this site have also done illegal things that they could have potentially been sued for and just never got caught. So it's not like anyone here can judge him, but then again, we can't really condemn TPCi either since they're doing what they are legally allowed to do.
Also, those noting that TPC isn't prosecuting fanfic and original drawings have to realize that fan art can fall under fair use laws. Most probably don't qualify, but I suspect that TPC largely ignores them because they actually promote the brand in a positive light. I'd imagine that you don't see much Pokemon erotica or pornographic artwork because TPC would legally ban it.
I can see why TPC might object to this event as much due to the presence of alcohol, considering Pokemon is largely aimed at children, as it is in defense of its copyright. If I were them, I might see it as a negative association.
@garyoakfj
He probably read the article on geekwire.
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/pokemon-sues-fans-to-block-pokemon-party-on-eve-of-pax-game-convention-in-seattle/
The event has been taking place since 2011 but this is the first year Ramar ran it. I don't know why TPC hasn't sued before; perhaps they weren't aware it existed.
It would seem Mr. Jones may now use the $4,000 to pay his lawyer to fight for his survival head on. Godspeed to him, Goliaths win more often than not, but there have been Davids who won in The Capitalist Court of Law in the past before.
It's risky, but it could be a landmark case setting a precedent that those such as The Pokemon Company cannot act so aggressively in the future if he wins. This isn't over yet. The Law is malleable; it is made by humans, not invisible arbiters who cannot be questioned.
@Yorumi You are 100% correct that legality does not make morality. However, who's moral compass would TPCi be bound to? If I was TPCi, I wouldn't sue, I would've just done the C&D, but this is a company, not a person. A company's moral compass is bound by profits. The only incentive they have not to sue is the bad publicity from doing so. However, that seems to have actually steered them to go after him harder.
@Yorumi If D&D has taught us anything, it is that Law and Good are far from synonymous. The Law can easily favor Evil, and anywhere between Good and Evil, as well. The Law favors harmony in it's ideals, but pure pragmatism and ambition in practice.
Way to go, now you hurt the Pokemon Company's feelings.
@hypercoyote Actually, according to the national decision reached by the Citizens United vs FEC case, The Pokemon Company is in fact, not just a company, but a living, breathing human being. (At least in the eyes of The Law.) Corporations now have all the same rights as individuals in the USA. So technically, any rights infringement which could be claimed from one person to another can apply to The Pokemon Company, including Defamation, Libel, and Slander.
If the Pokemon Company so desired, they could suddenly claim that they are now Catholics, and so any use of alcohol portraying their products would be considered sinful and slanderous. (Which could be used to justify legal action.) Yes, the Citizens United case opened all sorts of... interesting possibilities for corporations.
@Aerona Actually, he "hurt" the law, and thats the problem here.
He THEN went on to hurt their feelings. Never piss off the person that just slapped you, they might slap you again.
I hope that this whole mess wont ruin him, but he should learn a lesson or two from it.
In the end, copyright infringement can cost you more then just licensing it.
@PlywoodStick Oh.....then he (or she) is making a jerk move.....but one totally within his (or her) rights.
@hypercoyote Meeeeeeowth, that's right!
I'm going to pretend I never read that badly written email. Maybe this really is all a case of stupidity.
After all this guy's doing, it's really not surprising. He used the Pokemon property to draw customers and make money. Even if his motives were just to have fun, he did it as a business and money was involved. Just like Walmart can't put out a commercial featuring Pikachu without permission, this guy can't put Pikachu on a flyer and say "come to my cafe". After they came to an agreement, he then went online and painted the Pokemon Company as something of a villain to get sympathy money, supposedly unaware that TPC might not appreciate that, and in response pull their relatively easy agreement.
@PlywoodStick
Actually, that case recognized corporations as associations of people, deciding that their 1st Amendment right couldn't be infringed just because they were incorporated.
@Yorumi
I don't think the morality here is so cut and dry. After all, the guy stole the Pokemon IP, which is worth hundreds of thousands of times more than the fee they agreed on. On top of that, it's not like he was just some random guy having a party at his house. He was doing this at his own business. It boils down to a small business stealing, inadvertently or not, from a big business, and the big business going relatively easy on him, but not just letting him off the hook completely.
In any case, this is something that TPC objected to. TPC also has the right to sue over damages. If this guy hosted this party and used Pokemon in the name and advertisements, it is easy to assume that TPC is backing it. Even further, he did it for 5 years. Add in the charge at the door (regardless of the usage, the money wasnt the customers paying the DJ, It was the Cafe owner), the alcohol at the event, and other non-pokemon "kid" friendly activities, and this guy was asking for a C&D. AND for those saying the $4000 is too much in addition, well maybe it was $1000 per year of him doing this. By the sound of it, he said that he made "only $60". If that was per year, I doubt the Door Charge was able to pay the DJ and prizes. Maybe he misspoke, but if it was that he made $60 total, at $2 entry, that would only be 30 people and it was "filled to capacity" as he mentioned (at least about the party, which I think he meant about a previous year). I seriously doubt only 30 people participated combined over the last 4~5 events.
@garyoakfj
It was directly in the previous article.
"Jones manages a small café in Seattle and was formerly a Pokémon fanatic. For the past five years, he's held the "Unofficial Pokémon PAX Kickoff Party" at his café;"
Is anyone else even a little bit bugged by the fact that this guy had gofundme pay for the whole amount he was charged? The Pokémon Company isn't even sueing him so much as the suckers that funded him. I dunno, something about that doesn't seem right to me. Bear some of the responsibility, dude.
@Yorumi
You seem to misunderstand the legal requirements of owning a Copyright.
If he did not use the poster, he still would have been in violation. It was the poster that eventually drew TPC's attention. The word "Pokemon" was even in the title of the event.
Copyright Law dictates that the owner must defend their Copyright in cases like this. Usually a C&D is enough. Perhaps that wasnt enough in this case where the guy already did multiple events in the past and didnt get a C&D or charges.
The reason why Copyright laws are built this way is so that Monopolies can be created and destroyed. IF you defend your Copyright correctly, including suing and C&D where needed, you can protect it. IF YOU DONT, you could have other groups do this exact same "minor" events. Then companies like GameStop could host these events because "other people could, why can't we?". Then you have Microsoft (or another major company) say "If GS can do this, then why can't we?" And suddenly, the IP Copywright is lost.
TPC may HAVE to sue to protect their IP.
@Yorumi I think the main difference with the parody versus the poster is the parodies are not seeking to make a profit whereas the poster was promoting an event that was. So the examples are not really comparable. I don't disagree with your opinion that this was a bad move on TPCi's part. I think people are just saying this guy was not innocent. It's easy to overlook the immoral actions of an individual in the face of the big bad corporation, but the fact remains is he was trying to use IP that was not his to promote profit for his business, which is a shady practice in and of itself. Again, as I said in my first post, probably no one here is innocent of copyright infringement at some level, but hopefully people grow out of that stage once they realize it's wrong.
@Yorumi
I thought Copyrights worked the same way? Regardless, going "nuclear" as you seem to keep repeating would be demanding the full value of the Pokemon IP.
I doubt they asked for that. Instead, it sounds as if they settled for a mere $1000 per year of the theft. That sounds reasonable to me. If the demand is within a certain amount of time, there is still the fact that TPC is being generous with such a paltry sum for the theft.
And this guy most certainly went and threw TPC's name in the mud which causes me to feel this further problem is also of his creation.
This is turning into a fine mess.
I honestly think fans sometimes have no idea what legal boundaries actually are sometimes, and I can't say that's entirely a bad thing.
Good publicity is nice and all, but there are really solid reasons like @LordGeovanni just listed for the hammer to come down.
I feel like this site explains copyright fairly well: http://sites.lib.byu.edu/copyright/about-copyright/basics/ .
This may help clear up some confusion.
As if the Pokemon company is struggling for money. They rescinded their settlement offer because they claimed Jones was making them look bad by talking about the case. No, I'm sorry, even if the was, you're only making your company look even worse by taking away your settlement offer. As I recall, he only needed to pay about $4000, which to a multi-billion dollar company like The Pokemon Company, is absolutely nothing.
The classy thing to do would be if the Pokemon Company dropped the lawsuit, and instead sponsored Jone's small Pokemon themed party at his cafe. Pokemon Company could supply a few prizes or something, and Jones could split half the earnings of that night with The Pokemon Company. This would be a win-win, Jone's business might get a little boost in patronage, and The Pokemon Company would look good by sponsoring the event. Seems super obvious to me.
@duffmmann That would only invite more people to infringe on their IP....
@duffmmann He never asked for permission in the first place, and even then what you said they could do still has negative effects.
"Oh, TPC sponsored this event the one time because this guy got caught doing it. I'll do the same and they'll have to sponsor my thing too or else I can take them to court!"
Some lawyers are crafty enough to think of what I just said, and that'll create even more problems.
@Yorumi Naw, I get that. But on the parody, the ones I've always seen were free to download/watch. I guess you mean YouTube ads?
Impossible to say. Let's just see what happens.
What I find amazing is that the company could have withdrawn the settlment for anything the individual could have said. The case is public and TPC is painting THEMSELVES in a bad light. Those who like TPC enough will disregard it while the rest of us see a company being ludicrous. For those worried about copyright law the individual was not seeling knock off Pokemon games he was selling a party (which in and of itself should be flattering to TPC) which they identified as a means of financial gain benefitting off the Pokemon name.
The fact of the matter however is that the 'monopolistic gain' by the cafe is barely enough to pay the cost of hosting the party. TPC is stabbing at the wrong people. There are dozens of candid Pokemon and Pikachu rip offs throughout the app store and google play that they do nothing about. This is just true colors and they're not sad the world gets to see them.
@duffmmann I'm sure this is just an attempt to try to scare others from doing the same thing in the future. Obviously they don't need the $4k. The RIAA was doing the same for a while when they were suing people for illegally downloading music.
I don't know is Jones is being honest or is he isn't tho I guess we'll no by the end of the day.
@MitchVogel: You made a small(not sarcasm) error towards the end of your article.
Sounds like the IP-ripper-offer is s to the crew /screwed/.
@AceDefective
I appreciate that link that you supplied (Post #51). It did help clarify a lot of things for me. But one major thing it made me thing is why are images not covered by Trademark then? I thought images were under Trademark like names, but that isnt part of this discussion.
Instead, the bottom of that link has incredibly useful information under "Myth #11". It says that Copyright cannot be lost, as AceDefective mentioned to me, however legal action is a good idea. As we most certainly do not know the entire story, a C&D might not have been enough in this case.
My reasoning behind the $4000 lawsuit is still the same. I feel as though TPC is completely in the right here.
The Pokemon Company withdrawn the lawsuit cuz the money the guy was paying them for wasn't from him. In truth he not only try to make money off of the IP but off of others too so I had to say good job Mr. Jones, you had truly not paid for your crime yet.
@Yorumi You're right, our laws are pretty lenient when it comes to parodies.
Just think , if he had hand drawn Pikachu and Snivy and made them look bad and not used the Pokémon name, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
He also could have just asked.
@retro_player_22 If that's their reasoning I totally don't blame them.
@Kiyata_Hamasaki I no right?
That's odd that TPC withdrew the settlement apparently due to bad publicity. If they were worried about bad publicity, they should have done nothing and just let him pay the settlement instead of bringing up the issue again.
I can't lie.. This has to be some of the best trolling I have ever seen, without a doubt. Withdrawing a settlement because he supposedly badmouthed the company for suing him. Hilarious.
Erm... Okay? Why would he push to have it back on when he mentioned being unable to pay in the first place? He rather spend helpful people's money rather than return it? ... Is this a joke?
Good on the Pokemon Company for realizing they were being overdramatic with this though. But I don't see any reason for this case to continue being a thing - especially since they pulled on the 'deal'.
Meh, the whole thing smells funky, on both sides.
However, the guy really should have known better than using copyrighted characters in advertising for a business, without permission.
And as others pointed out, the whole crowdfunding the settlement fees was rather tacky.
hahahahahahahaha.
No sympathy from me.
"hurr durr, i'm going to throw a party and make everyone think that i'm commented with Pokemon so that people will be so impressed and that I will make a whole ton of money by ripping off something I have no right to use the copyright for. What could go wrong??"
Pokemon company used lawsuit. It's effective.
"Oh no! TPC got wise to my scam and now is actually threatening me with paying for damages. Boo hoo hoo, woe is me. WAIT. I know... I'll ask everyone on the INTERNET to help me pay for my scam blowing up in my face. Those stupid TPC people will never be any of the wiser and I can have everyone else fix my horrible error in judgement without doing anything myself, AND break at least a dozen non-disclosure agreements AT THE SAME TIME. I am such a smart person.
The Pokemon Company used "Withdraw Settlement" It's SUPER effective.
You know how I was saying in my last post on this, that he should have definitely served jail time for this? I sincerely hope this goes so much further to the point where he does.
Stupid people trying to get away with such an obvious ploy and digging themselves deeper and deeper by pretending to take responsibility for getting caught scamming by throwing even MORE scams and acting like a punk about it the entire time? PLEASE let this guy actually take this so far that he ends up ruining his whole life over this.
Seriously, I've never seen someone handle getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar quite THIS badly in a long time.
Like, hey dude, maybe your next step in the plan could be armed robbery to pay them. See how well THAT works out for you. Maybe he's actually stupid enough to try this, next.
Fan art: user created art using characters from Pokemon. This guy took official artwork he didnt create for a poster. It is different.
@crimsontadpoles @90sRetroGaming @Rhydas You seem to have misunderstood the article: TPC originally were willing to settle for $4000. If he had just paid the $4000 the whole affair would have been over and done with. Now that Jones has generated so much bad publicity for them, TPC has decided that they will not allow Jones to settle and that they will take him to court. Just like how a C&D seems like a great option when you're hit with a $4000 legal fee, a $4000 legal fee seems pretty appealing once you realize that your online campaigning has gotten you into a lawsuit with an international company.
It is not at all surprising given how Jones has helped to whip up a gaming media frenzy portraying himself as a hapless victim.
Let's not forget that Jones is basically an IP thief who used another artist's works to promote an event on behalf of his private business as well as his business in general. Unless he's a really crappy businessman he no doubt intended to profit from this event (the fifth such event that he'd been involved with) - and if you can't see how somebody could profit by owning the advertised venue and selling alcoholic drinks at an event with a $2 entry fee then you aren't really well equipped to discuss the money involved in this.
No matter how you slice it, we all know that plagiarism is a crime. Would you still feel that Jones was the victim if he and his company had stolen the artwork from a struggling artist who couldn't afford the lawyers to stop them? Of course not. There are plenty of times when we've seen big companies abuse the law to the detriment of undeserving individuals - this isn't one of them.
If TCP allowed the party to go ahead while knowing about it, anybody would be allowed to use official Pokemon artwork to advertise any business without seeking any permission whatsoever. You might think that sounds ridiculous, but that's what "legal precedent" is all about.
As a side note, it is probably also worth noting that the "David vs Goliath" is a poor comparison to make. Jones, his associate and his company are listed in this lawsuit, and as I stated in the previous article, it seems highly unlikely that they would have genuinely been unable to pay the legal fees.
(For bonus marks, I'll also point out that the tale of David and Goliath takes place during a war, Goliath sought to decide the outcome of a war via one-on-one combat between two champions, David only fought Goliath when promised a reward, deliberately refused to wear armour when offered it before the fight and easily slew Goliath using a ranged weapon in melee combat. If anything this tale would be better used as an analogy for how a clever, confident and ruthless individual can obtain great rewards effortlessly by taking advantage of a given situation.)
@allav866 It bugs me too.
dumb man vs big company.there is no hero in this story.dont want to be rude but it seems everyone involved in this is a bit of a...whatever
What I find funny about all this is that he picks Pokemon of all things to screw with. Anyone who has a passing intrest knows the hoops Nintendo themselves have to jump through to get Pokemon in Smash Bros or other titles outside the Pokemon games.
And that's Nintendo, the publisher of Pokemon games.
I have to agree that this guy kinda temped fates by having a Pokemon themed event where he charged money. An event that also served alcohol.
Tons of cons, little game stores, and other places hold Smash Tournaments all the time. Hell, some of them run Pokemon themed events. And they never get in trouble because they don't charge money.
I don't blame the Pokemon Company here. Some other members have made a point about struggling artists on here and I'm a writer who is trying to be published.
I would be protective of my IPs as well.
Maybe this should be a lesson to everyone. Copyrights exist for a reason, and I see a culture especially among younger generations that copyrights are a suggestion that can ignored whenever they feel like it. To some people, this comes off as a money grubbing company that is picking on an innocent business.
But maybe the Pokemon Company did not appreciate the image of Pikachu being on posters for an even that served alcohol with a DJ that proudly boasts that he is for 18+ events(Honestly, the first post on his facebook page has the B word). Granted, it says unoffical on the flyers, but if you don't pay attention or fail to notice that, you could end having a parent freak out over Pokemon(a series aimed at kids) being on a flyer for an event aimed at adults.
Why do people think companies fight so hard to protect their copyright and their image? Because Pepsi does not want their logo or slogans on something that hurts their brand.
Let me ask everyone this. Suppose you created an IP that is beloved by millions if not billions of people worldwide. Suppose your IP is aimed at children, and is a brand that parents have trusted for decades. Maybe they watched or read, or played this brand when they were kids.
Now, suppose you are a parent that sees a flyer for this child-friendly IP for an event that serves alcohol and is aimed at adults with a DJ that is not for children.. Hell, maybe it could be even worse and it could be an adult-oriented business trying to drum up business.
If your IP that you spent countless hours creating, building, and marketing to the public was suddenly shown in a negative light that is against the brand or image that you want would you not be upset? Would you not be angry that your characters are being used to promote another business that you want nothing to do with?
Now, suppose you try to be reasonable and you reach a settlement in the interest of being fair. But rather then having the person who sued you be grateful, they slam you online and try to paint you in a negative light. How dare they go protect their copyright!
Listen, I have no compassion for this guy. He used an IP to drum up business. There is a reason why the mom and pop burger place down the street does not have Mickey Mouse plastered all over their windows to "drum up business" Companies like Mcdonalds pay tons of money for promotional deals.
There is a reason for that. Copyrights are not suggestions, they are the law. You ignore them at your own risk.
@LordGeovanni I have to be honest I was piss off because I thought he was having some kids birthday party and they where suing over that but the I read more about it and I have to agree with you
@hypercoyote If Parody's are not seeking to make a profit how do you explain Mad magazine
@daff3ww Mad magazine is clearly not an official outlet for the characters. This guy used official art work for his event. That makes it look like an official event. He also didnt have permission to use it. Also, I have no idea on the inner workings of Mad but maybe they get permission from others before doing a parody.
He's been stealing their IP for 5 years, including illegally selling Pokemon branded alcohol.
Nintendo gave him a bargain price for that of just $4k, and he then basically tried to act the victim instead of a criminal. He would have made much more than $4k from it.
His actions are no different to someone making their own Pokemon movie without licensing the IP and being upset when asked to pay a ridiculously small fee after the fact.
@daff3ww parodies are protected for a different reason.
@Caryslan It wasn't just an 18+ event with sale of alcohol, the alcohol itself used Pokemon branding.
@Caryslan Good to see a post from somebody passionate about IP protection, it's really disappointing to see how the official outlets pretty much ignored this side of it. Best of luck with your writing
@LordGeovanni @Yorumi
Parody laws protect you... In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. Thats why there are so many parody content like films, videos, games etc..
I am curious to know what this guy is going to do with the Gofundme money that people donated. He now has $4,100 from fans. he was already going to profit off this technically.
@LyonHart
Yeah, that really stuck out like a sore thumb to me as well. Non capitalization, "no" instead of "know," ha ha. Sure the internet usually don't care about spelling but when publishing something like this, you should make sure you have at least the proper words.
@LUKEKUL
Actually, David slew Goliath with his own sword by cutting off his head, the sling just knocked him out
@Caryslan
Nintendo does own the rights to Pokemon as they own a 3rd of the IP. They are also in control of the majority shares for the Pokemon Company so they don't really need to go out of their way to get Pokemon in their games as they basically control the IP. If it wasn't for GameFreak, Nintendo would be able to do whatever the heck they wanted, even with GameFreak, Nintendo can still do a lot.
@Yorumi
Yes but he (weird al) doesn't keep those songs as the original. You cannot copyright a chord progression and getting the lawsuits on music is something very hard to do. You can copyright lyrics however if someone uses a line from your song, you can't really go after them for it. They'd need to use the entire thing or vast majority without many changes really for the copyright on the words to apply. The music, they never really keep it the same and therefore, yeah, they don't need anything. The thing that hits this guy here is he was using it to draw in business, charging a fee and using copyrighted material to advertise a party in his own cafe. Yes, it was only $2 per ticket but the money he'd make from 30+ people in there at once is much more. The parody laws do now cover the use of monetary advertisement for your own product/services. You need to get licensed for that and pay royalties. Yes, he could have had a parody or something within the party so long as it was a parody, but he can't outright take copyright material, theme a party off of it and charge for admission to get more business for his own business.
@ikki5 1 Samuel 17:50 would like to have a word with you
1 Samuel 17:50 NASBS
Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand.
I think he just uses the sword in the next verse so everyone watching KNOWS Goliath is dead since from a distance it probably just looked like he chunked a rock and knocked him out.
@Kalmaro ok, i see, I remember seeing "killed: when he drew "the Philistine" sword and cut off the head but it says "after he killed him. " My bad
Though at the same time.. in the NKJ which is the version I use:
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it.
So it says he killed him twice, or makes it sound like it. lol I guess you can see the confusion
@Trikeboy @LordGeovanni @Yorumi @daff3ww
For 5 years this guy has been doing this under his production company namely "Ruckus Productions". This wouldn't normally be a problem for a corporation like the Pokemon company, but he advertised the event on social media (Facebook). This opens up a can of worms (better yet Pandora's box), because if the Pokemon company don't shut him down now then anyone could use their IP to make money using the same circumstances.
The Pokemon company had every right to sue him because he freely admitted that he thought if they (the Pokemon company) found out, they would just send a cease and desist notice. By that statement alone, you have justified that the cease and desist doesn't stop people doing it. The settlement was to charge him for legal fees alone ($5000 lawyer and $400 court cost). They did not make any money on top just to prove that he is being charged for wasting their time. Businesses can not make money off other business through theft, but the story portrays this as though it was a fan just setting up a game with friends or locals. After an agreement was struck, he then again turned to (social) media to paint a dire picture of what the Pokemon company is doing to him in order to get sympathy to raise funds. The by-product of that was negative publicity for the Pokemon company who are the legal victims of this scenerio. Right there, the pokemon company has every right to pull (remove) the offer (proposed settlement) and take full legal action including damages
@ikki5 Haha, I don't blame you, some of the wording in the Bible makes you have to do a double take before you get it.
If you think its all right for TPC to sue people for relatively tiny sums like this, that's fine keep buying their stuff and allow Nintendo to increasingly act like a mob online(is there any benefit to to the Nintendo Content Creators program to anybody but Nintendo? do they even give out review copies of games?)
But if you don't agree with them but you just have to have Pokemon, buy them used. Yep, that's the simplest solution here don't bother to argue about this online just sit down and buy used games and encourage your friends to buy used games as well. You pay less, they get nothing and you can still play the game.
The question now is Nintendo Life the next target for using the copyrighted and trademarked Pokemon logo in reporting this? I want to see the Pokemon Company go all-out on this very important point.
Persue legal action against him, but everyone is making and selling unlicensed T shirts with Pokemon on them. No legal action taken in clear IP theft. Pokemon shuffle is getting deleted from my iPhone now, and I won't buy a Pokemon game for my kids for Christmas. Take that as my form of protest.
@TrueWiiMaster "Associations of people" are not individuals. The Law should not apply to conglomerates the same way as for individuals. The so-called "1st Amendment Rights" argument really just means that wealth equals free speech. In other words, it's a loophole to create unlimited political donations from organizations, to "express their values as free speech." That's not really free speech, though, that's just a clever way of circumventing the Constitution and keeping power vested with the wealthy, which the Lawmakers and Judges are all too happy to accommodate.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't apply the same rights to The Pokemon Company as you or I. They have much more wealth, and thus a bigger voice. Their "free speech" is more valued than ours as it stands. It's like comparing the autonomy of an adult versus a child: they have more wealth ("free speech"), so they are the adults, we have less, so we are the children. And, as we all know, adults hold more authority than children.
Sue that scrub for even more money
@LUKEKUL "Jones, his associate and his company are listed in this lawsuit, and as I stated in the previous article, it seems highly unlikely that they would have genuinely been unable to pay the legal fees."
You don't know his economic situation.
"(For bonus marks, I'll also point out that the tale of David and Goliath takes place during a war, Goliath sought to decide the outcome of a war via one-on-one combat between two champions, David only fought Goliath when promised a reward, deliberately refused to wear armour when offered it before the fight and easily slew Goliath using a ranged weapon in melee combat. If anything this tale would be better used as an analogy for how a clever, confident and ruthless individual can obtain great rewards effortlessly by taking advantage of a given situation.)"
A legal engagement is often referred to as a "battle" in cases like this. Goliath is the giant, and the aggressor. No one would fight a "Goliath" without a reason, since, as the name implies, it's impossible for a regular person to win in a straight fight. David refused the armor, because if he wore it, he would be no different from Goliath, who used any means necessary to achieve power. David used the slingshot because, again, no normal person can take on such a fight against a giant fairly against such odds. The slingshot represents the cracks of weaknesses in the power-seeking giant, allowing the ability for the smaller side to have an even match by exploiting those weaknesses. (Or in this case, the ability to call out the giant on their conduct.)
It is the giant in this case who is ruthless. It does indeed take confidence and cleverness to take on a giant, because few people have such courage. Thief or no, a thief is not as dangerous as an unruly giant. People have won against the likes of McDonald's and British Petroleum before, even with massive cover ups, so who knows, maybe Mr. Jones can take on The Pokemon Company and win.
I can understand why TPCi wanted to put a stop to this. Using the official name, images, and charging for entry into the event/making a profit with the name seems pretty open and shut for a copyright claim. The function being at a bar and with alcohol is probably why they were quick to move, not wanting their brand associated with adult activities.
And yeah, I'm sure there's hundreds of places that are doing the exact same things and promoting their own Pokémon themed events using copyright materials. Doesn't make them right in doing so, or make TPCi petty for not turning a blind eye in this case when they saw their IP being used sans permission.
@Starwolf_UK It's a news site, it falls into fair use, something this guy didn't as he was using the copyrighted material to promote his business, attract customers and make monetary profit off of it.
I don't think it was so much that this Jones guy was bad mouthing the Pokemon Company as much as his willingness to talk to the media about the situation put the Pokemon Company in a bad light. Shutting down fan events that were (supposedly) run well and made people happy doesn't make any company look good.
Remember, this isn't even just about the usage of the IPs, the cafe complied with the cease and desist immediately but the Pokemon Company still won't drop the suit.
I remember years ago, all the major Pokemon fan sites were getting cease and desist letters and being forced to close down. No other company was doing that for their game series.
This just doesn't make sense. We're missing some key piece of the puzzle here.
Maybe it's personal. Maybe a person associated with TPC went to the event, and overheard him reveal greedy intentions or something. And knowing this they decided to pursue legal action.
Not saying that's what happened- it probably isn't, it's just an example of something that COULD have transpired that we don't know about that would make sense of this whole thing.
***By the way, look at this excerpt from his statement, "we should no by the end of the day. We have the emails going back and fourth "
W should be capitalized, "know" is spelled "no" and forth is spelled "fourth".
Think it's safe to say he's never won a Spelling Bee
@Naoiko agreed
@AirElephant
Thanks for the link. After reading it over, I don't really see his words as anything more than a typical one side of the argument. I do feel the Pokemon Co., even though they have every right to do it, should have just stopped the party and let it go once everyone got their money back. I do agree that the event should have been stopped, given money and alcohol were involved, but I do feel like outright suing him was a bit overboard.
He was desperate, and the way of raising the money was obviously done because he needed it quickly. Since it went on the internet, of course you'll get people who say, "What happened to you was awful. I will never buy legit pokemon merchandise again." A statement from one of his supporters. That's where the 'bad light' derived from.
If I am to be frank, what did Pokemon Co. think was going to happen?? He'd just pay it quietly in 45 days? I certainly don't have $4,000 lying around either. I don't find his words as anything more than understandable frustration of the situation he's in, even if it was his fault.
Anyway, to each his own. Its a debatable subject, with no one being shed in a good light. At least it seems to be over.
@JaxonH
Haha, agreed.
I personally blame texting.
Dude should've seen this coming. NEVER talk about legal affairs until everything is settled and over. The Pokémon Company probably took it as an attack from him to turn towards the public with this dispute, despite the general public not being involved in the slightest.
And even if unintentionally, he caused some massive outrage against TPC, which they fear might negatively impact their reputation, and by extension, sales figures of their products.
@hypercoyote no, be realistic, it really wouldn't. Pokemon Company has already sued at this point, anyone would be foolish to think they wouldn't sue again.
@NoEasyBuckets but the RIAA got smart eventually and realized that was a battle they shouldn't be bothering with.
@AceDefective I'm just explaining what the classy thing would be to do in this situation. Yeah he messed up, but he isn't going to do it again regardless of if this case is dropped or not, and onlookers can also see that the Pokemon Company isn't afraid to sue if need be. So what's been done at this point really is all that needs to be done. Obviously TPC doesn't need the money, so they should take the classy high road here,drop the suit and sponsor his event. Nit would truly be a win-win situation. But no I don't expect TPC to be classy over such a thing.
Pokemon Company deserves all the bad press they get from this.
@Yorumi The people you are mentioning take content and create new content from it. They don't forklift it from the original source and reproduce it 1-to-1 somewhere else for profit. I was actually speaking to the re-dubbed animes you mentioned before. Honestly, I don't care to defend the point further though.
@daff3ww See my above comment.
@duffmmann Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about them not suing again. I think you may have misunderstood one comment where I said they would encourage others to do the same thing this guy did. I was saying if TPCi did as one member suggested and support this dude, then that action would encourage others to do the same. In reality, I realize they would definitely sue again.
@PlywoodStick
An association of people is a group of individuals, each with 1st Amendment rights. Besides, if only individuals have the right to free speech, the government would have the power to freely censor books, which are usually published by companies, not individuals. That would go for games, music, and movies too. It would also mean that unions could be banned from political involvement, which is a form of free speech, because they are groups, not individuals. Also, if the 1st Amendment only applied to individuals, how would that affect churches? They are religious organizations, not individuals.
Having money has no influence on what rights you have. Bill Gates, despite being worth more than The Pokemon Company, still has the same rights as you or me. Because he's so incredibly wealthy, he can better promote his speech, but his speech is no more and no less protected than ours. Wealth does not dictate rights.
@hypercoyote my point is, no one is gonna think that if TPC drops this suit and sponsors his event means they'll back down every time and they should therefore try and do the same thing. People are smarter than that, they'd see this and think, ok he got let off the hook, but TPC aren't afraid to sue, while they made amends and sponsored his thing, I'd be foolish to think they'll do that every time. Therefore, being realistic, TPC could be classy, drop the suit, sponsor the event, and the public will be smart enough to not try and recreate the same results as. No one would expect TPC to keep doing that something over and over.
Well, morally, I think TPC should just stop at ceast and desist. Legally though, they are free to sue. Regardless of this guy intention, he's still using Pokemon IP to benefit his own business. I know people liked to blame TPC, but both side is equally at fault here.
Regarding fan art that people have mentioned, no, fan art isn't legal unless it's fall into parody. Generally though, most companies were usually fine as long as the artist didn't profit from them. And yes, recently there this news that cover unlicensed material in NY Con:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/09/29/is-a-crackdown-coming-on-unlicensed-marvel-and-star-wars-prints-at-nycc/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2015/10/01/tolerance-for-american-comic-convention-fan-art-sales-reportedly-growing-thin
So yeah, this isn't strictly Nintendo or TPC thing, every company that value their IP will do the same, one way or the other.
It's the same situation as Nintendo and Let's Play Videos. They are certainly within their rights, but it's a jerk move. The money they'll get out of this case is a pittance to a company like TPC but it will ruin this guy's life. The guy isn't making them lose money, nor is he getting rich off the hard work of the TPC.
Proably the worst thing that could happen to him. He'd have probably been better off keeping it hush-hush but now he has a case against him where he's literally using the Pokemon IP to sell tickets to an event.
I imagine The Pokemon Company are continuing this because of the deception on his part. He didn't have to pay $4000 himself because it was two people running this event. It wasn't a small party, it wasn't free like some articles presented. Over 250 people were going at the price of $2 per ticket for revenue of $500 while also selling drinks($6 double vodkas) and Pokemon shots.
If Jones wins you all might as well head straight to the first T-Shirt printing company online with official images of any popular brand because it seems it would have be ruled that anyone can use brands they don't own to advertise and sell products and services.
This whole thing is just making me more excited for a new Pokémon game. The guy was dumb, face it. TPCI has a right to pursue legal action and I think many folks here are being pretty naïve when they say it's not "the right thing to do" or that they took it too far.
I wonder if @Yorumi and others sharing that opinion have even looked any further into the details of this case? What nintendolife is reporting is one-sided and missing plenty of facts. I don't think it's even reasonable to form an opinion on this case based on the reporting on this site. @LUKEKUL comments (#75) are spot on.
Bottom line, Ramar Larkin Jones is a rip-off artist, who has been caught and is now playing the victim role for sympathy. I bet once Gofundme finds out what he's been up to they'll return all the donations to the poor gullible saps that gave him money. You can't actually use gofundme to pay your legal fees in this way.
@whodatninja Why? because they sued someone using their IP to promote and get business to their cafe?
I will never buy another Pokemon product. This right here is what is wrong with the world.
@BrotherRob And you're what's wrong with the community. The guy did something illegal, he was the story manager and he promoted his cafe using Pokemon to draw people in for a party so the store can make a bunch of money.
@ikki5 This. I feel some are treating the idea he's a fan as some kind of "get out of jail free card" and are getting angry at the Pokemon Company because they're "bullying a fan". Honestly a fan should respect the rights to IPs, understand that fans support and like the brand and don't gain any special rights or ownership of it(well unless you are a stakeholder of the brand or have been given permission).
Someone can be a fan of Pokemon, like pokemon, they may want to promote Pokemon and want it do well, host events, etc. But when they start charging for them without express permission from The Pokemon Company they're no better than the companies who create unlicensed merchandise to exploit the IP for their own personal gain.
It is just common sense that if anyone is using an IP they don't own without permission to advertise/sell a product or service for any amount of money they're in the wrong. Some people need to understand just because the owner of the IP is a rich corporation and the person exploiting the IP isn't rich doesn't reverse the morality of the situation.
@Yorumi (@Dr_Lugae)
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. He did do something wrong, and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. Pokemon Co. went over the top on this one. Sure they have the 'right' to do it, but that doesn't mean they should.
I came from a small town, and this kind of crap happened there all the time, particularly with Disney IP. Sure it's not 'right,' but you just have to pick your battles, as it mostly stems from ignorance. A cease and desist would have been more than enough to end it for good.
@Yorumi If this was his first, or maybe second time doing this party, I would say, maybe a cease and desist might be in order but after extorting the IP for the last 5 years, a bit harsher measures should be taken.
"The suspense is terrible! I hope it will last..." - Willy Wonka
@ikki5 (@Yorumi)
I would only agree with that if a cease and desist was issued in the prior years, but it doesn't appear to be the case (but correct me if I'm wrong). A warning shot would have been a more professional way of handling it. Just because he got away with it for 4 years, doesn't mean Pokemon Co. should drop the hammer on him like that; because well, he did do it for 4 years with no knowledge that the Pokemon Co. was going to, out of nowhere, slap him with a lawsuit. We all know they aren't suing for the money, they're making a statement. A cease and desist would have simply ended it. Period. Throw the word lawsuit in there, and now the whole thing is a mess. It was too much, too fast.
As I said in my prior post. This stuff happened all the time in my small hometown, particularly with Disney IP. I've never heard of anything more than a cease and desist. Companies are usually pretty wise with how they pick their battles. Maybe their lawyers were just bored? I was a bit shocked to hear Pokemon went for the jugular like they did.
@Ryu_Niiyama
loving the profile pic
@Yorumi There's actually a bit more than just the poster. here's a copy of the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/276573606/Pokemon-Lawsuit
The same type of infractions were repeated several times, on the posters themselves. an image of Pikachu was used on a facebook post to promote the sale of the tickets, the sale of tickets themselves were an infraction ontop of the four previous years they were using the same kind of images.
I mentioned on an earlier post this is the worst thing that can happen because they've only strengthened The Pokemon Company's claims of the damages by misrepresenting the case. The way the settlement was presented to sites you'd think a single fan owed them $4000 in settlement, They lied, Because by "they" the defendant(s) are Ramar Jones and Zach Shore. 2 people who own a company "Rukus productions" had 45 days to come up with $4000.
While one guy coming up with $4000 in 45 days might be a bit steep, a settlement of $2000 from two working adult men, one with a manager role doesn't really seem out of the realms of reality. But conveniently Zach Shore is missing from all the reporting and the story that Ramar provided himself including his donation page only mentions himself despite the fact Zach Shore and him run the event and share a company together.
It's disgusting how they decided to charge him more because he was "painting them in a bad light".
They are painting themselves in a bad light. TPC needs a better PR person stat.
@Yorumi The $4000 Settlement basically was appropriate for the 5 years of mis-use between two offenders. A C&D may have been catching the first event as it'd be a one off.
You said in your other post that they're obliterating him, well yeah now they are. He probably did more damage misrepresenting the settlement and intentionally leaving out the other defendant in a way that would make The Pokemon Company's settlement look far harsher than it actually is.
@Dr_Lugae
Thanks for sharing the link, but I did look at this earlier today.
I do not know how much Zach Shore was involved, but the gofundme site would have still come up with $4,000, regardless of if it was one person or two. I cannot say if he was going for a sympathy play, or if he was the one that spearheaded the event, and is simply taking the fall. Despite how it is worded on that gofundme webpage, the media is to blame for not digging into the information accurately. That part of the argument is pointed in the wrong direction. It's part of the media's job to look into these things. Honestly, I think that point is moot anyway; the money would have been raised, and the 'bad light' would have been cast the same.
I think the amount of money is irrelevant here, it's the fact that the Pokemon Co. just showed up and slapped them with a lawsuit with absolutely no warning.
@LordGeovanni This disgusts you? When the guy wasn't harming or doing anything wrong? You're so messed up lol.
@mjc0961 No, they didn't paint themselves as the bad guys, a guy exploiting their IP and the sites not telling the whole story painted them as the bad guys.
@Ron1212
Using Pokemon to advertise and get more business to his Cafe and get like 100-200+ in there to get a lot of business is wrong.
@Yorumi
Though it still be the images and such, it still infringes upon it in which he was using it to promote his own business. You can't just be like "Oh, but it is just the images, without them there isn't a case," claiming that would be like claiming a murder case would have no case if there was no murder so therefore the people suing are wrong to sue even though the act was still committed. As for a Cease and Desist order, well, it is kind of hard if this guy has been milking it for monetary gain for the last 5 years for his own business. Even still, if this was actually just a person and not a business, it might actually be different and they may do a Cease and Desist however since this was to promote his business, a lawsuit is much more effective than a business that had been using it for years to promote themselves. The difference very well could be the fact that it was a business doing it and not "just a fan" as what these news sites are seeming reporting. Yes, he may have been a fan but he had alternative motives with this as well.
@MoonKnight7
Lawsuits are often dropped without warning. You shouldn't need to tell someone that taking your stuff and work is wrong. Though yes, a Cease and Desist would have been the nicer thing to do, they are looking at this more from a business stand point. If it was just some kid fan or whatever doing this and then renting out a hall or whatever to have some little bash, I would think a Cease and Desist would be in order. But the fact that this is a registered business doing this to promote their own business, I think the steps to be taken should be a bit more which may actually be the reason why they took it to the full lawsuit as this is more about him using the parting and the copyrighted material to promote his own business to get customers there and buy a lot of Cafe type stuff as well as the party. Even more so that this has been happening for years makes it a bit more. This is also probably why the business is on the lawsuit documents as well and not just the name of the manager, they are suing the business and the managers. They may have done a Cease and Desist if they had know about it in the previous years too but you only know something when it is reported or advertised in a way that you can see it. Overall, since it was a business, damages should be paid for.
@ianolivia
Why? Think about it this way, if you were looking for your dream job and some little punk came and painted you as a horrible person so you'd never get the position. How would you feel? I know it is not the same scenario but still, the context is similar, this guy is trying to make them lose business now for him committing a crime. The Pokemon Company is now probably going to lose a little more money over this punk for playing the victim and only telling part of the story and leaving out the parts that would make him look bad.
@Ron1212
I find it sickening that your response is to say "You're so messed up lol". That exact apathetic and lackadaisical attitude is why this guy is in trouble in the first place.
Looking over these comments, I realized something. A great way to examine this situation:
Consider us all "fans" of Nintendo (and/or TPC for this discussion). Half of us sees nothing wrong with what this guy did. The other half feel as though this guy isnt a fan of TPC at all and instead used it for his own benefits. And Half the fans here seem to think that perfectly acceptable.
Let us look at this a different way. What if we are fans of Lions. You know, the Big Cats. We all get to enjoy these lions by going to the zoo. We pay for a ticket to see the lions. But then you get our boy Ramar Larkin Jones and he thinks that a lion will draw business to his cafe. So he steals it and declaws it to make it "safe" to display. And then the zoo finds out. And half our group wants to support him on this? What if he KILLED that lion and got it stuffed? You know, to make it easier to display. Would half our group still think it is alright?
I am sure that many of you will look at this contrived story as out of the blue and not related, but it is. Ramar Larkin Jones STOLE something that at least a majority of us likes a lot. He DAMAGED the thing by showing in a public space that same thing crossed with alcohol. With a paid entry to some cafe. With the poor conduct that he is displaying now. How is his actions against Pokemon, the IP and story instead of TPC, any different than declawing and showing off a lion or killing it to stuff it and show how much a "fan" he is?
This guy is a criminal. Just as bad as the pirates that steal the games themselves. Only difference is that he is selling it too. At least the pirates usually drop them off online for free.
And for the sake of my sanity, everyone PLEASE stop saying it is over the poster. The poster was ONE of the things that drew attention to the illegal activity. It WASNT the entire illegal activity. If the poster wasnt made, his actions were still illegal. Nintendo/TPC just might not have seen his actions.
@TrueWiiMaster Actually, it is only recently, through Citizens United vs FEC, that unions, institutions, and nonprofit groups (including churches) hold 1st amendment rights in the same way as individuals. Before then, none of them held those rights in exactly the same manner as individuals. These reports from the Center for Responsive Politics sum up this situation pretty nicely:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/09/five-fold-upsurge-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-spending-far-more-than-in-12-cycle-at-same-point-in-campaign/
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/10/millions-spent-by-487-organizations-to-influence-tpp-outcome/
These are all events which affect the quality of life for billions of people, including both those inside and outside the USA, yet the public has little say on the matter. The government can, in fact, censor any material they desire with the stroke of a pen. (Invoking Patriot Act or Espionage Act)
It is the wealthy who decide who gets the most attention, validation, and support through the use of their wealth (read: "free speech"). Whoever has the most influence and the biggest voice usually wins.
@LordGeovanni Did you read other people's responses before posting? No one here is saying that Mr. Jones did nothing wrong. We all know he did something wrong, and we all know he needed to be reminded of that and stopped. No one here is condoning what he did. The disapproval of The Pokemon Company's actions comes from their poor conduct. Even if Mr. Jones is a thief, his conduct in this case is the lesser of two evils. (If we can even call his conduct "evil"... Not really.)
Of course, we shouldn't be siding with any evil, which is why this whole argument is so silly. We shouldn't be supporting The Pokemon Company in this case, either. The Law is supposedly on their side, but who knows, maybe they'll lose the case. We'll see.
@PlywoodStick
Tell me something, would you support Microsoft if they took the Pokemon IP to promote their business and to draw in people to give them money and then Pokemon sued? Or Sony, Toyota, McDonalds, etc.? Would you support them? If not, why is this situation any different? Honestly, it makes me sad to see people not support Pokemon when other franchises try to use Pokemon to promote their own business and get customers.
@LUKEKUL David fought Goliath because he was disrespecting God. He didn't feel like he was worthy to even take the reward.(This post will be deleted now lawl)
Anyway you have a good point about how he used the copyright for his business. I was pretty much just ignoring people who sided with Pokémon til now. The fact it was a business makes me think a bit differently, since I was thinking about it like the same as charging for an unofficial tournament...which it's not.
@ikki5 I would draw a distinction of scope. Mr. Jones and his company don't decide the fates of millions of people. (Or billions, in Microsoft's case.) I don't think I would treat a small time thief the same way as a grandmaster of heists. The Law shouldn't, either.
@PlywoodStick That's why TPC offered him settlement for a mere $4k, far less than they would have charged anyone for a similar advertising campaign for one year, let alone 5 years.
Then he basically slapped TPC In the face with their generous offer. MS wouldn't have received a generous offer.
@PlywoodStick
Strange. As I understand it, unions have been exercising their right to free speech, including political involvement, for decades. They didn't just get that right in 2010. It was also my understanding that the government was unable to affect or censor churches in any way, despite them being organizations rather than individuals.
Actually, and ironically, the public has all of the say. The wealthy, incorporated or not, can only spread their message. It's the people who choose who gets elected. McDonald's being able to pay for political commercials doesn't change the fact that McDonald's doesn't get a vote in the next election.
The Patriot Act, unless I'm missing something, is about surveillance, not censorship, and the Espionage Act only allows censorship of things directly related to national security. So no, the government cannot just censor anything it wants.
With the rise of social media, that's becoming less and less true. These days there are probably more people on Youtube than who watch the news or read the paper. You don't need to be wealthy to be heard by thousands on Youtube. Wealth can act as a sort of megaphone to get messages out, but that's about all it can do. The people are the ones who vote, so the people are the ones with the power. The wealthy just try to convince the people of their message.
Geez there are a lot of comments. At least most of them seem civil, from what I've read.
@PlywoodStick So, in your opinion, if the company is small, they should get a break and almost be immune to legal actions? Yes, it sucks for the little guy but at the same time, $4000 seems to not be such a bad deal considering what was done and usually copyright infringement dispute can result in 100s of thousands to millions when it is often at a corporate level. Mind you those are the larger ones but still, $4000 seems like a good settlement. However, now he has made the mistake of trying to paint them as bad when it was who who did the criminal act effectively tarnishing their image.
@ikki5 Yeah, not only is he one of the world's dumbest corporate criminals he's also a jerk, and stupidly attacked his victim for offering him possibly the world's smallest settlement for half a decade's worth of copyright theft.
@PlywoodStick Theft is evil. Stopping theft and asking someone to pay a nominal amount to cover their theft instead of suing for the full amount is not evil, but rather the opposite (it would be like robbing a bank and having them settle the matter for 1% of what you stole).
@ianolivia Pokemon Company did a nice thing to offer this tiny settlement, and the thief attacked them for it, so of course Pokemon Company would then defend their rights in court.
What he stole had monetary value and Pokemon offered to settle for a tiny fraction of that value. Why is TPC the bad guy?
No fun allowed you guys. Stop it.
@PlywoodStick "You don't know his economic situation."
It would be very easy for Mr Jones to prove to TPC - or anybody for that matter - that he couldn't pay the fine if that were indeed the case. Just produce bank statements, pay slips or a summary of his taxable income from the last financial year. TPC has nothing to gain by agreeing to settle with Mr Jones and co. for an amount of money that he can't pay - they'd just waste 45 days and then go back to lawsuit. Mr Jones, on the other hand, told the internet that he couldn't afford it without a shred of proof and would have gotten out of paying the full settlement fee entirely if the settlement wasn't withdrawn (actually as @ikki5 pointed out he nearly made $100 profit). I'm far more inclined to believe that he could afford to pay the fine but didn't want to go through the difficulty of actually doing so.
Thanks to @Kalmaro @ikki5 @PlywoodStick @Fee for sharing your insights and interpretations on David & Goliath by the way, I'm actually not too big on bible studies (though I did attend a Christian school) but it was still interesting to read
@Yorumi he made actual money by having pokemon themed parties in his cafe to get more customers.
@Fee was about to say David was defending God, was too busy sleeping though so good on you mate.
sings in Lamb Chop's Play-Along ending theme
This is the argument that never ennndddds~
Yes it goes on and on my frieeeeends~
@megamanlink not sure why you included me in your big post. I'm in support of the Pokemon Company.
@LordGeovanni ok
@Trikeboy
I added you because I was also supporting your statement.
There was no ill will intended to anyone. I was just supporting those that were delivering the fact as they are, and updating those who were misinformed.
@Electrosynthesis LOL same here! Nocchi is my favorite!
@LordGeovanni How long, exactly, do you think a firm should retain exclusive rights over IP? We are now on year 19 of exclusivity. Shall we stick with Lifetime + 70?
@MadAdam81 Did TPC lose business in one of their local cafes? If what he "stole" had monetary value, you wouldn't mind defining it, right?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...