Last year, popular YouTuber Desmond “Etika” Amofah tragically took his own life, so artist and content creator CptnAlex – who produces a wide range of customised shells and other items relating to Nintendo – decided to produce the ‘Etikon’ to raise money for JED Foundation, a mental health and suicide prevention charity.
While an initial crowdfunding campaign to create the controllers was unsuccessful, CptnAlex ran a second, smaller campaign which was. This campaign raised $10,000 for the charity, but CptnAlex has recently confirmed that following a cease and desist from Nintendo issued at the end of September, he had to stop selling the special controllers (thanks, VGC).
The issue wasn't that Alex was selling modified controllers – it was related to the fact that the devices used the Joy-Con name, which is Nintendo's copyright. "Nintendo didn’t shut down my business completely," CptnAlex told fans on Twitter. "They just had me remove some designs and I’m modifying most of them. Controller modification isn’t the issue, use of copyright is."
Approximately 300 of the special controller shells had sold via crowdfunding platform IndieGoGo before Nintendo took action, with another 200 placed for sale on Etsy. These 200 units ultimately had to be trashed.
The news has predictably gained a hostile reception on social networks, with many fans complaining that Nintendo's strict legal stance is preventing some of its biggest fans from doing positive things, like raising money for charity, in this particular case. Coming so soon after the confirmation that The Big House event had been cancelled following a cease and desist from Nintendo – an event which was forced to move to an online setting this year, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – it's hardly a shock that this latest revelation has gone down so badly.
[source videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 189
Oh Wow Thats something..
A bit interesting that this happened all the way back in 2019 apparently, but only now decide to come out when Nintendo is dealing with the idiotic smash fanbase.
Almost like this is a non-story and they knew that something else had to happen first...
Wouldn't a normal fundraiser have worked better? And then 100% of the proceeds could go to the charity instead of producing controllers.
...controllers themed around random dead people is weird, but an entirely different issue.
Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just sell the kits to customize joycons?
It's shocking because this sends the message the name "JoyCon Boyz" is not permitted by Nintendo.
A fan group that is in support of suicide prevention in admiration of a suicide victim.
How can they continue to be so tone deaf?
Everytime I get reminded of etika and what happened to him I feel sad. Last month I viewed his final livestream for the first time (the one where police was already looking for him) and it had me in tears.
Unlike the smash discussion which i stand behind, this is sad to see. Especially as someone who suffers some ptsd and mostly play nintendo's games simply cause they give me that, 'feel good, enjoy yourselves' vibe
Hopefully nintendo understands the backlash and atleast donates some themselves.
Dissapointing is quite an understatement in this regard
Bruh I can't even make a controller to honor a dead person wow nintendo. Wow
Eesh, like I understand the word ‘Joycon’ is a Nintendo copyright but still... the optics aren’t great on this one. Also interesting people are talking about it now considering this is old news but yeah, Nintendo are just not looking good just now.
@PBandSmelly now you mention it I think so..
Nintendo hates you and they want you to know and understand that.
Companies cannot pick and choose which copyright to protect. If they fail to protect a copyright in this case they would not be able to protect in another case. So you protect it every single time.
You should've mentioned the actual YouTube Video that announced this in your article:
https://youtu.be/_lSbDZ5XlFg
Good job, Nintendo!
The ‘simp for Capitalism’ attitudes seen in these sorta comment sections is getting very old. Yes, we know Nintendo is protecting its copyright. Is it right or wrong? That’s the question.
I'm split on this. I totally get why Nintendo wouldn't want anyone to produce merch using the word "JoyCon", but this was not a good time to do so given that they were simultaneously honoring a dead person and donating the proceedings to charity. Not a good look for Nintendo at all.
Although, it seems like no one is mentioning the fact that CptnAlex is still allowed to produce these decals as long as it doesn't say "Joycon" on it, so I don't think it's a complete loss such as fan games and the Slippi incident.
@PBandSmelly @ShinyUmbreon Yep, but CpnAlex has only just revealed what happened.
@Damo I just don't get why the baby gif means..
the comment section on nintendolife looks to be on its way to being more and more like IGN comment sections. if you've seen IGN comment sections you know what I mean.
That's unfortunate. It'd be nice if Nintendo just helped point them in the right direction (which it seems they did) and threw in a few bucks themselves.
@Damo @ShinyUmbreon @PBandSmelly @QueenKittenWrite
No, it was this year. No idea why the writer is trying to pretend this was from 2019.
Just choose a different method to raise money for charity that doesn't involve copyright infringement instead. Problem solved.
Really if this was a big issue, the news about it would have come out back when it happened. They're clearly just trying to throw more fuel on the fire from the recent controversies. Creating drama for the sake of it.
@BLD Interesting I thought this was deja vu but I guess not..
@JCoop22
This is not and has never been true, and in fact there's been court cases saying as much - but people will continue to simp for companies because they believe this anyway.
They should have done a different method of donations, but they have a good heart so I'm not complaining.
@Grot
They could charge him for a license, or grant a free one for charity use. It can even be $1 and other considerations, thus still protect their IP.
@nessisonett They could protect their trademarks and still allow this. That's exactly what licensing agreements are for.
@BenAV Again, not true. This is from this year, and they tweeted about it when it happened. This is not somebody trying to dig up year old drama, and idk why this article lies about the date of the incident to imply otherwise.
But even if it was a year old... so what? It's despicable. Sometimes current events lead to a reflection on things in the past that got buried - as was the case when George Floyd's death prompted a review of past deaths in police custody. You don't get to say it's not a big issue just because you hadn't heard about it until a few weeks later.
@Grot
If they talk to nintendo before they made that maybe nintendo would accept it but that very slim since they have power A
@BLD Well if not them then at least someone's trying to create drama for this article to pop up now. Whether that be the author or someone else spreading it. Plus there's nothing despicable to speak of.
@BenAV
[bad take]
This is a trademark issue.
There is a pretty straightforward way to overcome it:
1) Remove the Switch logo
2) Remove the word "JoyCon"
3) Rebrand the controllers as "Etikons"
4) Continue selling the controllers
@BLD let's not do that please.
Hey y’all,
I take responsibility for infringing on Nintendo’s IP rights. They’re well within their rights to enforce them. That’s never been my question (or anyone’s really). What it boils down to is whether they SHOULD enforce their rights in certain instances, and WHY they choose to enforce them upon me, and not on other companies like Controller Chaos
@BLD Don't be stupid.
@Grot That's not how any of this works.
You aren't required to grant licensing. Just because steam can sell bethesda games doesn't mean you can.
@Grot @BenAV let's not insult them either
Were there other ways to handle this — probably. I read in another thread the typical reaction to Star Trek-based fundraisers is a "don't do this again" letter after the fact.
That being said, Nintendo has always taken a hard-approach to individuals using its IPs without license where there is an exchange of money or where Nintendo feels it can still make money.
People may not like it — but it really has never changed. And its legal decisions are all made from that perspective. So the company is generally consistent.
Whether or not (or when or not) it should take this approach is another matter. And I can certainly see people being upset. But I can't see them being surprised.
this comment section needs jesus like omg
Protecting IPs my ass
@nessisonett Capitalism is the least evil system. Perfect? No, but still the least evil.
While I get the point of people asking Nintendo to change its stance on this, it's simply not possible.
They pursue copyright protection as a business, that's it. They can't give money to the charity because they aren't a nonprofit organization.
If they did this, they would go bankrupt, since there are a lot of local cases in several countries about streamers or people who aren't as famous as Etika; and lots of people would try to get them to donate because of their local thing.
They are a business. Businesses win money to exist. And they exist to win money. That's it, people.
@-Juice- @nessisonett Let's avoid that topic as well, please. We don't need a debate that will devolve into politics.
@Grot What are you on about?
Licensing is not something that they are required to do, but could do when it is appropriate. Acting like they have no choice is completely stupid.
If they just don't want to, that's also fine. Don't pretend they have no choice.
@RupeeClock so why couldn’t they have just met with Nintendo’s legal, pr, and senior leadership for pre-approval of this?
@Olmectron Who said licensing agreements have to be free?
Who said they are losing money? These are genuine joycon, so they make the same no matter what.
For those who weren't sure about whether or not this happened last year, it didn't: https://twitter.com/Cptn_Alex/status/1116438659102801926
CptnAlex did have a copyright infringement issue last year, but it wasn't about the Etikons.
It's also worth noting that CptnAlex is considering to launch a campaign to revise the Etikons if #FreeCptnAlex gets on trending:
https://twitter.com/Cptn_Alex/status/1335993691060703232
It's a shame this happened, but I think CptnAlex is taking this fairly well, and I'm glad that there's still a chance for the Etikons to continue being sold, albeit in a slightly different form.
Nintendo needs to fire their public relations people, even in matters where are they are technically in the right their handling of it is atrocious.
To focus on a more important issue:
If anyone feels strongly about mental health awareness, then donate directly to a charity rather than purchasing any video game controllers.
Contributions will go directly to the organization without any 3rd party middle-man.
@BLD USA is not the only existing country. There are many more things similar or worse happening in many more countries around the world where Nintendo has presence too.
Nintendo would go bankrupt if they attended every charity fund related to gaming people that suffered these incidents.
They are a business. Not a non-profit organization.
What is so hard to understand about this concept? You can't just take someone else's IP and make money off of it. If Nintendo doesn't act, it sets a legal precedent that people can use in court to continue to steal their designs.
But the Nintendo haters will act like Nintendo is some big uniquely evil company and that's absurd. Sony, Microsoft, Sega, Disney, Fox, right on down to hobbyist painting pictures in their back room or writers publishing their first book will defend their creations just the same.
Where is the motivation to create something new if anyone is allowed to copy it and undercut you?
should have called it joicon, joikon, joykon and prob get away with it
This seems like such a non-issue. If the word "joycon" is the sole problem as the article reads it to be, just change the name and relaunch. They definitely have more publicity for it now.
If Nintendo isn't going to play ball (no surprise there), there must be another way to raise money and honor Etika at the same time.
@QueenKittenWrite I'd say this is far more disappointing, where as I don't think many people would actually really care about the Smash tournament.
In my opinion, they should have just made them cease making units and let them sell the 200 leftover stock. Although, that name is pretty horrendous, anyway.
@Eel You're doing God's work
I want these so bad bc I didn't know who Etika was until a little before he died and I'm so ashamed.
@Cptn_Alex
From what I have seen, it appears you will start an Indiegogo for revised versions of you JoyCons if #FreeCptnAlex trends on Twitter.
In other words, you are exploiting the controversy to sell more of your product, which makes you seem like a grifter and undermines the original purpose of selling the product (raising money for charity).
@-Juice- Oh, dear. No. Have we tried the alternatives yet? No. Catalonia Republic was working well before it got beat down and squashed.
@TheSmashTheorist I mean anyone can make controllers. Hori, 8bitdo, PowerA. They just can’t call them Joy Cons.
@StevenG I was refering to comments saying they should donate instead directly to the charity if they dare to send C&D letters to people getting money for charities.
There's some people here I really like to tell them what I think of them, but I quite like this site and don't want a perma ban.
Nintendo, just do the right thing and support this.
@westman98 5) Get a license from Nintendo to sell them.
@backup368
You don't need a license from Nintendo if you don't infringe on their trademarks.
Can't wait tomorrow to read the new "Nintendo Bad" news of the day.
@Grot You must think you're so much smarter than those people, huh?
Probably hasn't occurred to you that most people KNOW what Nintendo is doing and why, and STILL think they're douches for doing it.
I honestly don't think most people in these comment sections know how Copyright or Trademark Law actually work nor do they understand the concept of legal precedent. You do not magically lose all authority over trademark if you fail to sue every person comes remotely close to infringing on IP. It isn't that simple. The use of "Joycon Boys" is an Etika specific reference and I am somewhat surprised that Nintendo didn't say anything about him using the term before. If Nintendo could block anyone from even using terms used by their company on everything, it would make things a lot more difficult even for fan sites and YouTube channels that use similar imagery to official Nintendo IP. They could just alter the Etikon, but it also would not damage Nintendo if they hadn't.
@Grot People think the world is made of cotton candy and everything should be fine and rainbows, everything Nintendo do isn't fine but it is how a company in their position should act, they can't legally allow someone else use their copyright without authorization, or have official tournament use unauthorized software, and before someone mentions Sega and their fan games... Sega is a dying company that forgot how to make games, they either allow those fan projects or they sink.
So sad when someone takes their own life. Everyone, if you're that down and low, please get help. You may think that nobody cares about you but I promise, if you reach out to others for help, there are many many people that will step up to help you! Stay in the fight!
Another thing to remember, is the people left behind, the people that love you, now have a hole in their heart. Taking your own life is never ok! Every single life is precious! Please seek help for yourself!!! Don't let anxiety, depression or whatever keep you from seeking help. You start by taking ONE STEP FORWARD and you KEEP taking more steps until you get help.
If there's anyone that's reading this and you need someone to talk to, you MESSAGE ME and I WILL HELP YOU take your second step. Believe me when I say all of this because there was a point in my life, where I was in your shoes but I actually tried suicide but THANK GOD I didn't die. You ARE loved and if you think nobody will love you, then I will love you. Take the first step toward healing. Please!
Also, if you're a Veteran and need help, message me and I will help you get the help you need because I am a Veteran myself. DON'T GIVE UP!!!
It's sometimes difficult to rationalize a company doing the legally safe thing when a good cause is involved, but the question then becomes: If Nintendo allows it here, where is the new line drawn? Are we saying Nintendo's IP is off limits except for anything to do with a tragedy or good cause? OK, so now any time someone is sick or dying, I can market a custom Switch console with the person's likeness, and Nintendo has to look the other way. Maybe I rent a warehouse and manufacture 10,000 of those consoles and sell them in every Best Buy in the state. How about for the #metoo movement? That's a worthy cause. OK, add that to the list. And don't forget the endangered polar bears. I don't intend to sound didactic, but why does doing something to honor someone's memory and help a cause have to do it by using a term that someone else has copyrighted? If we walked in a shady shop and saw knockoff joy cons for sale we'd think it was thievery. This isn't thievery, but it's still selling a product using a name that belongs to someone else.
@JSDude1
Think about this, online communities form around aspects of gaming culture all the time, often derived through recognisable aspects like hardware names, locations or characters featured in series, etc.
If such communities grow it becomes likely that they'll start producing merch that enforces their derivative brands. That doesn't necessarily make it okay to do, but it happens.
Saying “it’s for charity” doesn’t make you exempt from copyright laws and the guy knows it.
People are just digging up old news, telling half truths and misinforming others, solely to smear the Nintendo name because they didn’t get their way.
This week is a showcase of Nintendo ignorant to how bad all of this makes them look
@Burning_Spear,
Awesome post, but I am afraid that amount of rational thinking will be lost on some of the people on here.
@BenAV
You're the one who literally said there's nothing despicable about sending a cease and desist to a freaking charity.
And I'm the stupid one?
If so, I gladly wear the title of idiot.
@Cptn_Alex It's pretty cut and dry, no reason they shouldn't enforce their rights in any instance.
@Parmandur
You're a "sue for mickey mouse on the orphanage wall" kinda guy, huh?
Ooooo! Another moment to eat popcorn . Love reading comments here.
Well aside from that, I wonder if Nintendo informed them on anything wrong here before they took them down so they can maybe change that? I cant really go on to speak about what happens in this situation but it would seem like a great idea when this is a fundraiser and taking it down without warning them and giving advice on what they should do to keep it going kinda makes them look awful in the process.
@Burning_Spear Couldn't put it better myself.
Nintendo needs to protect the ip or else they lose it. Now is it morally right for them to do it. No I don't think so but they need to make sure they do these thing even if the people who Nintendo sent the message too were doing it for a good thing.
I can imagine Nintendo not wanting to do it either but they have too.
Joycon is a copyright name.
Why people can't get that?!
You just can't sell things that are trademarked in the name of "charity". It is still illegal.
This brattish entitlement is getting out of control. It's ridiculous,
Lol some people really would defend a multimillionaire dollar company even in the crappiest situation. Sad.
@RupeeClock "It's shocking because this sends the message the name "JoyCon Boyz" is not permitted by Nintendo."
No, it send the message you should not sell things using someone else's trademarked name in it, even if you think it's for a good cause. Why is this so hard to understand for most?
@DK-Fan because most companies wouldnt care and make an exception based on the circumstances. Nintendo is being their normal clueless idiotic selves.
@Malones2792 Its a nintendo community news site, buddy. People out here defend no joycon drift and the overpricing of games.
You aren't going to like this, but Nintendo had no choice because this is a trademark infringement, not a copyright issue. Companies have some leeway in choosing whether or not to initiate a lawsuit in regards to copyright. Trademark is different. Legally, you must always defend your trademark claim against any and all violations or you lose it. It's that simple. If Nintendo didn't pursue this, they would have lost their claim on the Joy-Con trademark.
@Grot There is a lot wrong with what Nintendo is doing right now, when will people like you quit defending corporations that don’t know or care for you?
@Cptn_Alex I've never heard of Controller Chaos, but after a quick google search and trying their online tool to build joycons, maybe because they don't put a trademarked name on it?
@SilentHunter382 @PBeni
False:
https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-sue-infringers/
"Failure to Prosecute Is Irrelevant to Abandonment: This rationale is based on the notion that an infringing defendant should not be let off the hook just because some other infringer was not pursued for its wrongdoing. This rationale is also supported by policy concerns: if a mark owner is threatened with a loss of rights for not prosecuting every infringer, it would clog the court system with petty disputes brought for no other purpose than to avoid abandonment."
@NIN10DOXD
Thank god someone else here who's not falling for the "It's not Nintendo's fault, they HAVE to send cease and desists to charities!" shtick.
@BLD This is not entirely correct. While you don't have to sue everyone who infringes upon your trademark, repeated failure to do so can be considered abandonment. It's a gray issue open to interpretation, but any lawyer will tell you the safe move is to block such efforts whenever practicable. A C-and-D is the most efficient means since it usually eliminates the problem without much cost or hassle.
@Burning_Spear
Nobody in the world would sincerely argue that Nintendo has abandoned the joycon trademark while they're literally selling the damn things in every Walmart, Gamestop, Best Buy, and Target in the world.
@BLD I was saying that there's nothing despicable about a company protecting their trademarks. It's not a malicious act and it's well within their rights to do so. Raising money for charity is great and I'm all for it but you've still got to go about it the right way. My comment telling you to not be stupid was in response to you implying that I'm in 'full support of suicide' which is just absurd.
Homers out running the bases with Nintendo.
@BLD I mean, if an orphanage was dumb enough to try and make profit off of someone's IP...
@BLD they didn't give a cease and desist to a charity: they gave a cease and desist to a for-profit operation using their IP who happened to be giving some percentage of profits to charity. Charity isn't a shield from legal exercise of rights.
Yeesh.
Nintendo isn't the problem. Smash fans aren't the problem. Modders and hobbyists and people who organize charities aren't the problem.
It's something like 75% of the commenters on this site that are the problem.
Erhmagheeeerd, Neentendoo ish a munshterrr.
Defend your copyrights or risk losing them people, it's that simple. Nintendo haven't cancelled this bloke, nor did they step in and demand they stop raising money with their products in the name of mental health awareness, they simply asked for 'joycon' to be removed, as well as any other unlicensed bits.
Breaking news: any other business would probably do the same.
I agree with Nintendo, they can’t just let people break their copyrights for charity, the law still applies to charity’s.
In b4 tomorrow's headlines:
"Nintendo Shuts Down COVID-19 vaccination program Because Scientists play Mario Kart 8 Deluxe During Their Free Time"
And of course one of the top comments is one of the "Nintendo must protect their ips!!!!" Bootlickers lol
According to Captain Alex he said that joycons fall under the fair use policy and are a parody on the trademark.
What also made him frustrated with the issue is that they're much bigger companies that resell skins, shells, modified joycons etc. and actually make profit.
This C&D just makes Nintendo look even worse than they already look.
For the people just parroting each other and saying Nintendo is always in the right at least do your research before immediately shilling for a company that is only after your money instead of making yourself look like in idiot.
why people think they can do whatever they want using somebody else brand? it's something I don't understand
How stupid do you have to be to sell copyrighted images and named content and think you can get away with it.
It has both the joycon name AND logo in this product.
Don't like it? Support SEGA, so they can make Consoles again! After all, SEGA Does What Nintendon't, and that includes listening to fans and acknowledging their artistic endeavors. Maybe even buy an XBox Series X and go up against Nintendo with Halo!
@Kirbyboy92 Look at his youtube channel he said it there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lSbDZ5XlFg&t=114s&ab_channel=JoyConBoyz
And looking at his twitter points he raises some points
This used to be a great site where Nintendo fans came and had sensible debates but it’s really gone downhill. It’s a toxic as everywhere else and even the articles themselves have become what we can find elsewhere especially when it comes to lazy stereotyping of Nintendo and it’s target market.
This is shameful.
@westman98 If you make a game or peripheral for Switch, then yes, you do. This is the big reason why Game Pass for Switch was scrapped. None of those titles, nor the service itself is licensed by Nintendo.
Soooo... change the name then? Seems like a no-brainer. 🤔
I know what Nintendo did is all evil while technically legal, but hanging a business on the tragedy of a popular streamer's suicide is a bit more reprehensible. Seems a lot like people who make fan games full well knowing they'll get struck down, but when the dust settles they get a huge signal boost and a sympathetic light.
Aside from that one week where Nintendo decided not to partner with Sony, has Nintendo ever had a worse week?
Why do we get more news about what Nintendos legal team is doing than we do about actual f&^#ing games?
@Stocksy
I'm also really disappointed. I know this is the Internet, but I was hoping for a more nuanced response than "Nintendo is legally in the right, end of story" spammed ad nauseum.
As if CaptainAlex didn't already know that.
As if ANYONE didn't already know that.
No one is arguing against Nintendo's legal precedent here: it is definitive and absolute. The ACTUAL QUESTION HERE is how come the tiny suicide-awareness charity case was targeted before Controller Chaos and other JoyCon manufacturers who sell Nintendo's IPs for cold hard profit. Why does Nintendo prioritise the former over the latter? If Nintendo must supposedly deal with every instance of copyright infringement or deal with losing their trademark (as people here keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating etc), where are their priorities?
Unlike everyone else in this thread, I don't have a doctorate in law so I won't pretend to. I'm also not going to definitively declare Nintendo to be in the morally wrong because I don't pretend to know the full situation.
But its a shame how everyone here immediately jumps to Nintendo's aid, like this is a personal attack on the developers that made their favourite games and not an unrelated corporate branch. I love Nintendo just as much as everyone here and that’s why I'm not going to stand here and pretend like they always do the right thing. I want them to treat their audience with as much respect as they treat their games, but I'm not going to plug my fingers in my ears and say "Lalala its the law" when they mess up to avoid having to think about the implications.
@Grot Absolutely right, And re freemelee: People who diss Nintendo for not allowing emulators in competitions don’t understand the nature of the business. Their IPs are the essence of the company - if they allow them to be used in non official ways like this even once, then things will spiral out of control & the IP will eventually be compromised. Peer Schneider put it brilliantly on one of the NVC podcasts.
Anyone who completely defends Nintendo without a nuanced and complete understanding of what has happened here is just as bad as anyone who completely attacks Nintendo without a nuanced and complete understanding of what happened here.
This applies to most of the people in this thread.
The word Joy-Con is trademarked for all the emotional children that don't understand what's going on.
You need permission from Nintendo to sell products with that name on it, which homie seems to know that he didn't have.
Nintendo fans think they can infringe on Nintendo's IP's 24/7 with no blowback from Nintendo because they think that Nintendo is their best friend.
@Grot That's a reason that people don't have to accept. This kind of emotionless capitalist attitude needs to be fought against.
@JuiceMan_V Trademarks should also not exist.
@May_Nyan
Support another company and save yourself the heartache.
@EmmatheBest
Considering it's a holiday week where they're probably selling tons of Switches and games (as normally expected for any console maker in November-December) there's probably been plenty of worse weeks for Nintendo (like losing Iwata and the aftermath, announcement that the Wii U underperformed, E3 2003, etc.)
Maybe worse week for the PR of their legal team though. For good publicity they should C&D something relatively non-controversial like a fan game. LOL
Was Nintendo in the legal right doing what they did here? Yes, they were.
However, even though they are legally obligated to do this, putting a stop to a product where the money made off of it goes to suicide prevention will no nothing but hurt their already worsening reputation.
@JuiceMan_V Support no companies.
@Zochmenos Which part?
@May_Nyan
I assume you grow your own food and live under a roof you built yourself?
@Zochmenos
A fair point about what I said about a complete understanding.
Toxicity is relative. I haven't seen much name-calling, but quite a few people are being rude to both CaptainAlex and anyone who believes Nintendo to be in the wrong here. It's a tad unpleasant, but it could be worse. It's moreso the large masses of people parroting the same misinformed legal information that irks me, since it misses the crux of the dilemma.
@May_Nyan
If that's your stance, than you have no argument here for or against Nintendo.
@Toy_Link That is bad faith, I can't opt out of capitalism. I do want to see it destroyed however.
@JuiceMan_V My stance is that people should stop defending companies citing that they have a right to do this, and actually criticise when they do bad things.
@May_Nyan
You don't support support companies, tho.
Therefore, you shouldn't support the people using said company's product either.
Your stance overall is pretty much nonsense.
It's the same arrogance Nintendo showed during the days of the Wii, wich they quickly regretted when their next console failed.
If only they learned from their mistakes...
the real question is, how much great gatsby stuff is going to flood out next year from it finally hitting the public domain on jan 1 2021?
not to mention the steam boat willy stuff in 2023
@May_Nyan
You said "support no companies" and I asked the obvious question that if you literally support no companies.
Have you looked into countries that consider themselves socialist that seems like one way to opt out of the capitalist system?
@Zochmenos I'm a commie, I want to get rid of the capitalist system and replace it with a system that actually benefits everyone rather than one designed for the profit of a few...
Sigh let's stop that already.
@Cptn_Alex There is no such thing as a right someone has that they shouldn't enforce. If the police knock on my door, I have the right not to let them in, and I am under no obligation to let them in to prove that I have nothing to hide. It is my right, and my business alone what use I wish to make of it. Similarly, how Nintendo chooses to deal with copyright infringement is their business alone. They need justify nothing; they need justify it to nobody. They don't need to justify it to you, and they certainly don't need to appear to you to be dealing with it as they deal with other possible cases.
What the hell is the big deal? As far as I can tell, the issue is due to the use of the Joy Con branding that belongs to Nintendo.
So, remove the damn branding and everyone can move on with their life.
It's such a simple solution and people are acting like this is a major deal.
@Zochmenos Getting rid of corporate copyright would give artists more control and freedom over what they make... so
one obvious thing is that we'd no longer see high quality projects being forced to end because of cease and desist notices, and more artists would be encouraged to do what they want without fear of that.
Another benefit would be that companies would no longer being able to take the rights of things made by their workers.... under the current system if someone designs a character while at a company then leaves, they can't even use their own character anymore, because it's owned by a company who really had nothing to do with its actual creation. Eliminating copyright gets rid of this problem, an artists work could no longer be taken away from them like that.
Another thing is that not being under the control of corporations would allow artists to follow their own creative vision and make what they want, rather than what a company thinks is "marketable", so a lot more interesting and varied things would be made as a result.
***** nintendo jesus christ
@May_Nyan
Hypothetically, imagine you're J.K Rowling in a world without copyright. You have written the first Harry Potter and (assuming contracts still work in this world somehow) you've gotten a publisher to publish the book without copying and ripping you off.
It's a success and Warner Bros. wants to make a movie version of it, but change several things that gets rid of the "spirit of Harry Potter". You of course reject, but you can't stop them because you don't actually have any exclusive right to the property.
Warner Bros. makes Harry Potter Meets the Care Bears and it's a huge box office success. You've been blacklisted in Hollywood, because you're seen as a trouble maker. All of Hollywood makes hit after hit on unofficial Harry Potter sequels while you're forced to work retail to make ends meet (despite creating the most famous character of all time) no one cares about the official Harry Potter sequels, because the movie Potter is now the "real Potter".
There's still plenty of ways for an individual artist to be screwed over by the big corporations. Sure artists work couldn't technically be taken away from them, but it could be stolen without even ever having worked for them because no one has a copyright.
Also on your last point, individual artists can exist right now without the backing of a large company. We live in a golden age of media that doesn't have to be overseen by corporates backer.
What stops from most directors like Christopher Nolan hopping ship even right now? It all boils down to money.
The big media empires, even in a world without copyright, would still have all the dough. A company like Disney or EA might even be richer as they don't have to buy companies anymore to get the games they can just release the stuff on their own.
It'd take years for an individual artist to make enough dough to fund a multi million picture in what would take a studio a day. Artists would still need to go through the mainstream entertainment industry to create art that can successfully grab people's attention through marketing, excellent production values, correct distribution, etc.
And no, abolishing companies and establishing communism wouldn't fix this problem. But that's a topic that really shouldn't be discussed here for the sake of moderators, like @Eel.
So why are they trying to profit from the dead guy? Why not just let him be at peace and leave Nintendo alone for once.
@May_Nyan “Another thing is that not being under the control of corporations would allow artists to follow their own creative vision and make what they want, rather than what a company thinks is "marketable", so a lot more interesting and varied things would be made as a result.”
Except anyone can pick of pencil and some paper draw whatever they want right now. If you have a creative vision follow it and don’t join said company what am I missing?
It’s also worth pointing out your view of eliminating copyrights and trademarks would result in a clear net negative for all the creators you claim to support,
I think the people who run this website know it’s readers too well, and puts out articles like these to stir up the people that frequent the site.
This comment section is a downright frenzy.
It is really sad to see the amount of fanboys on this site. "They're protecting their copyright" "Other companies also do bad things" Yes, we know. We still have a right to discuss it and to call it out if it's stupid and/or poorly timed and/or tone deaf. (In this case, "and" on both accounts.)
@Zochmenos
Firstly, I agree that the fundimental principle that Nintendo is legally justified is understood by literally everyone here. Its frustrating that it's being repeated ad nauseum.
The legal inaccuracy is the idea that if Nintendo didn't let this one instance slide they would lose control of their trademark. Something that Controller Chaos and similar companies clearly prove to be invalid. This ties into the whole "why me but not them" thing, but it also goes against one of the major arguments repeated repeatedly in this thread.
@ToonStuff
Honestly, this is the gist of the situation. I'm not certain whether Nintendo was required to do this or it was just in their best interest, but regardless of legal precedent... this reflects really poorly on them. Its going to take time for them to fully rebuild their image.
@HypnoVike Nintendo, a corporation whose primary objective is to make money has to protect it’s Intellectual Property. If they hadn’t used a trademarked name in their sales Nintendo wouldn’t have objected to the fundraiser. The blame lies entirely with the fundraiser, if you want to do something positive make sure you can actually do it.
So a company uses a trademakred name on a product that a percentage of profits from is going to charity, the owner of the trademark comes in and says "hey stop using that trademarked name, but other than than continue as you were" and people are in uproar?
Seems fine to me, they just have to put a different name on the product and everything caries on.
@jedisquidward But they are right though, so......
Anyways, dunno if it's been mentioned but the seller is rebranding them to keep on selling.
See? See how easy that was? Just keep the Etika logo and remove the Switch one. That's all.
I believe the sky is still intact.
@nessisonett
It’s called ‘copyright’, not ‘copywrong’.
I am the Boss, i am the wicked...I WANT EVERYTHING, i am NINTENDO.
Look, people. It's all very sad and all, but you have to understand that we live in a civilized world, which is regulated by laws. And if you want to honor someone and/or raise funds for charity while using someone else's IP, you have to do it RIGHT. They should have contacted Nintendo and tried to negotiate all possible solutions with them. Who knows? - maybe Nintendo would have supported they idea? But they've decided to do it independently and here's the logical result.
@Cptn_Alex They could have just as well given you a license to make these or even make a small run of these joycons themselves. Besides doing the right thing, Nintendo obviously didn’t get the memo about Philanthropy being the best PR. They are in DESPERATE need of good PR right now and they could have pointed to this and said “See? We are nice guys, we are helping a life long fan that unfortunately lost his life to mental illness.” They could’ve even matched the money made and donated. Etika was a sweetheart, a gem. I still remember where I was when I heard it. Broadcasting on my old Twitter account when he went missing and assisting people in trying to find him since I live in the NYC area. He was one of the only reason I did NOT take my life yet and why I still fight my own depression, anxiety, and PTSD every day, because he couldn’t. This was a person who everyone loved but few got the chance to truly love him or want to. That’s the same story I have to it hits me a lot harder than most. The fact that Nintendo would rather sue, would rather take someone to court, rather than license out their stuff and honor a life long fan who’s free PR to them was NUMEROUS, makes me completely sick of them. It’s to the point where I’m considering selling my Switch and not buying anymore of their games. I’m a life long Nintendo fan myself but this recent leadership is complete trash. Enough is ENOUGH.
@Iggy-Koopa "We need to stop polluting the ocean"
"BUT YOU SEE THE OCEAN IS BLUE"
"Yeah, you're right, I guess that completely undermines my point"
@jedisquidward No. That's terrible.
Bottom line: They didn't ask permission to Nintendo to do this. Go and cry somewhere else. If you own something, and someone uses it without your permission, you'd be pissed off as well.
@BLD If you continued to read you would notice that approach is only 1 of 3 approaches the courts can take when deciding the issue. And its the only one where the trademark isn't lost. The second approach is more relevant to the Joy-Con trademark as it is widely infringed upon. By failing to take action, they risk the mark becoming generic.
Not going to defend anyone here but I wonder... What's Nintendo going to cancel next?
@Luffymcduck Anyone who does something involving modding or trademark/copyright infringement. Because they're smart.
There's nothing surprising about this, even if it is kind of sad. But people are acting like this is about Nintendo specifically when it's really happening everywhere all the time. Capitalism in the US has ruined education, healthcare, and much more. But a lot less is at stake when someone has to change a controller they're selling or cancel a tournament. I can't see there ever being a George Floyd of the gaming industry.
Plus intellectual property is like the crown jewel of western individualism, they're gonna do everything they can to protect and profit from it. Why do you think the idea of cultural appropriation exists? We treat everything as a commodity, even abstract culture.
@J-Biz I didn't say it was illegal to do this. It doesn't surprise me that so many people are not just excusing the company for shutting down a charity, but also cheering it on. It's just a scummy thing to do from a "family brand".
@Grot it's not even a moral argument. Companies rarely have a choice about enforcing their copyright and trademarks. Legally they are required to consistently defend their IP or some jurisdictions can and will dissolve those rights. It's essentially an issue of squatter's rights which is a real thing. If you know someone is using your property and allow them to do so for a period of time you can't then change your mind and start trying to exploit them. There are reverse scenarios where a person could do just that. Allow someone to build a business based on something they don't own then threaten their entire operation later to exploit hefty fees. The law is setup to protect both parties but Nintendo has to be seen as vigilant about their own IP.
If they don't do so enough eventually you get things like genericized trademarks where legally everyone can call any game system a Nintendo, you can Google stuff on any search engine, and everyone makes asprin. It's happened before to other companies plenty of times.
The question, then, is why did a charity controller design mod to honor a deceased Youtuber involve having to infringe Nintendo copyrights to begin with? People keep focusing on whether Nintendo was in their right to defend copyright or if unauthorized use of copyright for charity purposes should be acceptable.
But why was the design using Nintendo copyrights at all? It seems incredibly outside the stated purpose of the design.
"Look people, they HAVE to shut this down, they're legally required to"
Doesn't the Twitter of Sonic the Hedgehog retweet fan projects? Didn't Capcom officially endorse "Street Fighter X Mega Man" a few years back?
I would legitimately love to see hard examples of these kind of laws instead of just vague "they have to protect their copyright, they HAVE to take down that Mario drawing on the kindergarten wall"
I should say that when you read the details here, it is not AS egregious as it can initially come off. I still think it's reasonable to be upset at them though for their extraordinary tone-deafness.
Between the general lack of quality in Mario 3D All Stars, the ridiculous artificial shelf life of it and Mario 35, and the absolute stubborn unwillingness to give us a product people are craving (ie Melee online) and actively snuffing out alternatives while rereleasing the same exact NES games over and over, this company has just been doing really poorly this year.
@NEStalgia Etika himself created the design and the term, "Joycon Boyz" to refer to his fanbase. Joy-Cons also has a dash in the middle, and this wording doesn't, and the 2 halves of the Switch logo are spaced differently, so these were only barely scraping a breach of copyright.
@yuwarite Ah, I see. That makes some sense then. I don't think the dash or the spacing of the halves is relevent. I didn't notice or couldn't tell that without being told that, which is a slam dunk for copyright violation if that's even remotely possible, but that does explain why it was seen as relevant.
I'm betting if it used the word "joycon" without the switch-half logo styling, it wouldn't have been an issue. But the incorporation of visually identifiable stylings along with the name probably put it over the top.
@yuwarite It's not unlike the peddlers on the streets selling Raybar sunglasses or Calvin Kline ties. In copyright and trademark law, it's about a reasonable likelihood of consumer confusion. You can't try to sell an item or service by making it look like a more known brand. And so, even if it's not an exact copy, if it's too similar it's in violation of the law. There have been many viewpoints expressed here and I'll respect them all, but a little common sense at the outset could have averted all of this.
@Burning_Spear But people are still allowed to sell custom Joy-Con shells. It seems to just be around the wording and logo that was used.
Out of the three “fiascos” that Nintendo has started this is one that I do feel is bad for the company considering that it was a charitable venture. That said @CptnAlex should’ve been more careful with shell designs and logo/wording usage after receiving the copyright infringement issues brought by his Tweets that @DCorp mentioned, just because you’ve dealt with one That doesn’t mean the company’s going to forget about you.
It’s also worth noting that both Patreon and Indiegogo DO keep track of campaigns that involve corporate IPs, especially when it involves IPs owned by highly litigious companies like Nintendo.
@TwinFami The sad thing is that he’s repeatedly tried to get a license from Nintendo to do what he’s doing.
@Zochmenos
Is your implication that law is logic without emotion and that morality is emotion without logic? Because whether you value one over the other seems to be the fundimental difference between both sides of the argument (from what I can tell anyways.)
I understand it this way because of the people who are responding to "Yes it is within the law, but it's morally reprehensible" with "Yes it is morally reprehensible, but it's within the law." I don't understand why it can't be both.
The way people argue that it's either one or the other is why the conversation isn't going anywhere. When neither side is listening to the other, it's just a shouting contest.
As for morality being devoid of logic... isn't the law built on morality? Examples like laws against stealing or hurting people are primarily about "doing the right thing", no? So doesn't that mean that the law is as emotion-fueled as morality?
@yuwarite
Isn't this the exact same logic that allowed Sony to name their console "PlayStation" without dealing with Nintendo's licence for the name "Play Station"? Maybe the law has changed since the late-90s, but I just think it's funny how they got away with it.
@Zochmenos One solution would be for individuals or small groups to be able to have a form of copyrights, while not allowing any for corporations (who ideally would cease to exist anyway), or rather, rights only for people who directly work on a thing. For branding things would change to more localised production rather than being dominated by global brands.
Those are some ideas for improvements within the current system but my preference is also for the profit motive to be completely eliminated, which would remove the incentive for exploitation completely.
@Bubboi Youre giving NL comment sections way too much credit
@Shadowthrone those don’t cause enough arguments in the comments section
@JuiceMan_V Nintendo and I have been bffs since 1991
@backup368
Well Cptn_Alex seems to have made no attempts to get his custom Switch JoyCons licensed, which explains why he had to remove some of them.
Gamepass on Switch is an idea that has been and is still being explored. Nothing has been approved or canceled.
@Zochmenos No, it's completely different to what happens in this system, which is hierarchical and has people not able to own and control their own labour, people paid minimum wage struggling to pay bills and having no rights over what they produce, while bosses and ceos get rich from doing basically nothing but steal from their workers.
@Zochmenos
That is because most people, myself included, don't know the full ramifications of letting it slide.
Some are saying that Nintendo would instantly lose control over the Joy-Con name, something that would justify Nintendo's actions if it was true, but the existence of other licenced Joy-Con sellers make me doubt this (which I'll explain later down this post.) Others say that Nintendo would then have to cater to absolutely every other individual who infringes on their IPs with good intentions, which most people don't actually expect of them. The world doesn't actually work in extremes like that.
CaptainAlex already bought all of the Joy-Cons himself. If all of the proceeds were going to charity (which I'm not sure they were) and Nintendo's brands were being well represented, I don't understand why Nintendo would feel the need to intervene.
Controller Chaos is not an isolated case: I have seen so much unlicensed Nintendo IP use on t-shirts, mobile app games, mobile app ads, posters and especially controllers. The Mario and Pokémon IPs have been infringed a countless amount of times yet Nintendo still owns Mario. I have no reason to believe Nintendo would lose the Joy-Con IP when it's been infringed in much fewer instances than Mario; this feels like a case where one guy on the Internet did a second of legal research and now everyone is parroting his buzzwords without really understanding what they're saying.
As for people pushing their agenda on why it sucks that 3D All-Stars is a limited release... its the Internet. I bet some people shoehorned how Waluigi is not in Smash and Persona 5 is not on Switch into this as well. When things like this blow up, people will find a way to push their agenda.
And while I agree that none of us know the full story, since a full understanding is probably impossible, all we can do is just give it "our best cracks." Chances are that we'll never know the truth.
@Zochmenos
...If we don't understand the extent of Nintendo's justification in regards to the law and also don't understand the extent of Nintendo's justification in regards to morality, what are we even discussing anymore?!
If I were to clarify what I'm getting at, I'd say that logical pleas are just as limited as emotional pleas by our lack of contextual knowledge.
For example, if the law had an iron grip on Nintendo and they didn't have a choice in the matter, that would explain the lack of morality. If there was no such requirement, an argument against their immorality becomes less valid.
With this little context one way or the other I'm not even sure we can make a logical or emotional understanding from this. That's what I meant when I said (#197) that whether you value morality over law or vice versa, that'll be the deciding factor on where you stand in this matter. There are points to be made for either side, but all I can say with my limited knowledge is that it could very well be both. How are they mutually exclusive? I don't understand why Nintendo can't be correct according to the law, but still have done the wrong thing.
Maybe they don't care about doing the right thing and maybe they don't have to. But if they're going to follow this path of neglecting morality then people should be allowed to notice and react accordingly.
If you break the law than you suffer by the judicial system, but there isn't much of an apparent downside to acting immorally within those guidelines. I'm not sure what to make of that without spiraling into an entirely different discussion, but what else can society do to counter the immorally of companies than to talk about it online and encourage them to improve? I seriously can't think of any other approach they can take.
@DCorp at least it's good that Nintendo is only going after the copyright infringement and not the other aspects of his business.
@Zochmenos It should be obvious that the majority of workers are not "small business owners" or otherwise self employed... becoming either requires either a significant amount of capital to begin with, or a lot of luck... for every Twitch Streamer who makes it big, thousands get nowhere.
The majority of workers are coerced, with threat of starvation and homelessness into labouring for the benefit of some rich person they'll never even meet who hordes vast sums of wealth while the actual workers are paid little, have to constantly worry about how they will afford food and bills and rent because they can't afford their own homes so what little money they do earn is mostly stolen by landlords, and because of this they are forced to continue doing things they don't want to and are unable to pursue their own interests.
No amount of pointing out exceptions will change this reality, this hierarchical inequality is inherent to the capitalist system, capitalists can gain nothing without exploiting and stealing from others.
@westman98 Apparantley, he didn't even ask his family to use Etika's name... And only now has reached out to communicate with them (a year after Nintendo's C&D)...
There's more sketchy things going on right now, but I'm holding my horses until this gets resolved. He still gets the benfeit of the doubt of me, but so far his damage control is poorly at best.
@BowtieShyGuy
Yeah, everything about his actions seem shady at best, insidious at worst.
Nintendo did nothing wrong here.
Okay, so this whole situation has become this massive mess over the past few days that has become far more than just another instance of Nintendo C&D'ing. To recap, the original C&D happened back in September, which only happened because of the words "Joy-Con". They were perfectly fine with the Etikons being produced as long as the trademark wasn't there.
Putting aside the fact that a crowdfunded product being shut down wasn't revealed until a few months later at the exact moment when Nintendo was getting a lot of flack, CptnAlex did a solid job of clearing up the misinformation at the time and started another indiegogo to revise the Etikons which became a success fairly quickly.
However, soon after Etika's brother opened up and revealed that CptnAlex never asked his family to use Etika's name, made even worse when a confusing statement on the indiegogo implied that the charity wouldn't even be getting all of the profits. Since then CptnAlex did talk to Etika's brother and showed receipts as proof that he didn't pocket any of the money, but his reactions to the allegations weren't great either, as he threatened to sue a Reddit user who made a post about it. Still, the fact that he based a controller on Etika and didn't bother to contact his family until this whole controversy is a bit shaky. Etika's brother seems to be planning an Instagram Live to discuss the whole situation, and we'll see how it ends up turning out.
In general, I think this has become this incredibly nuanced and messy situation that's way more complicated than just "Nintendo was right or wrong". There are a lot of arguments to make about Nintendo's copyright policies, but I don't think this is the best case to base them on. If anything, it might be best to distance yourselves from the whole situation and let the people involved resolve it amongst themselves. If you want to donate money to charity in support of mental health, I highly recommend that you actually find a charity and donate directly rather than do it through a middle man.
@weisske its gotten much worse over not a lot of time, IDK if its because there are more stories about things people have strong feelings about but if all the arguments and negativity from stuff like this moves into articles about random things that don't matter or unimportant and people are attacking each other over just unimportant opinions, these comment sections are on a fast track to IGN comment city. that's just my two cents and perdictions.
@westman98 Why is it expected? It would be terrible for Switch developers.
@backup368
I'm saying if you want to sell a 3rd party Nintendo accessory with Nintendo's trademarks and logos, you had better get a license or you will get a C&D.
@DCorp I think your response was really well-written and did a good job in summarizing all points at hand. It's easy to jump to conclusions and only listen to the site you support, so I really appreciate you taking all sites into consideration without being biased.
Personally, I think Cptn_Alex lost even more credit after he voiced his perosnal opinion on the relationship of Etika and his brother (in the "Here's my receipts"-Tweet). Even if his claims were true, he should really not voice his pinion at this point as he has literally no relation with Etika before making those shells.
However, I won't get any further into this, because as DCorp said, distancing yourself from it is the best you can do atm.
...okay, reading his recent tweets I can now totally say that he's a slimy person.
I'm not saying he's in the wrong (iuristically speaking), but totally not a person I'd want to trust either my IP or charity money with...
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...