@Bluesaxo They don't have to pay. They're made to pay. You don't balance the books for a huge business and talk with their legals teams, tax experts etc etc.
@WaffleRaptor01 Power dynamics exist. By your metric Robinhood was the villain.
And the Sheriff was morally correct because he was upholding the law.
Those with more wealth - and power are not somehow beholden to the same rights when they themselves often get to dictate the rights of those below them. Capitalism is broken, and the creators of these big publisher based videogames do not even recieve residuals.
Speaking of which, publishing is an evil business model - disguised as a service for creative people in most cases.
People who can't create - publish.
No. Stealing from the rich is always correct.
Oh, and in this scenario - I think Nintendo is in the right because the people doing it are exploiting piracy for profit. Something I don't condone. There is nuance to everything. The world is not bound to a black and white moral binary. There is a difference between downloading a game for yourself, and turning around and trying to sell that stolen content.
@FantasiaWHT correct. You cannot profit off somebody else's work. However if you transpose it yourself and change things about it... that is not a copyright issue. That is a plagiarism issue. If you share it for free, you are not breaking laws as long as the person you share it to isn't profiting off of it. If plagiarize it, but change a few things enough and title it something else - you can probably claim ignorance or inspiration. Music is tricky business. It's not as easily fought over as games themselves seem to be. This is because music has a long history of legal battles going back VERY VERY far in human history. It is seen as an artform by courts. Games are seen as products.
There's a reason John Williams estate isn't going around taking down covers of his songs on youtube. It's not an easy court battle, and there's a lot of precedent.
My theory is that these hosts either had 1:1 transcriptions of their music and/or they were making money off of them somehow directly, and assumed because they transposed them themselves they were "protected"
I don't think Nintendos legal team is going go after something where they can't win.
This is actually outside of their rights to do. Musical arrangements cannot be owned, and the only grounds they could take is plagiarism, assuming the individuals profit of it and if they try and take credit. Another hilarious thing where this oversteps bounds is that if these arrangements were created by an indvidual by ear - then they are recreating that piece of music. There is a reason that you can't go after people for making covers of songs because they are essentially transforming the music. The same thing here with arrangements.
If the hosts were hosting official transcriptions of the music that could be warrant for that, but trying to take down another persons arrangement of your music because you just don't want them to is silly.
Even funnier is that what exactly are they trying claim? The melody most likely.
Well here's a funny loophole! Remake the sheet music, change a few notes, timings, chords... then name it something like Theme of the Hero in Green! Inspired by Nintendos Legend of Zelda series. Bam. Protected. Though probably not in Japan, but ***** 'em.
This one is a losing battle if anyone were to actually fight them on it because there's very LONG standing precedent for it. Sorry Nintendo - you lose this one.
Honestly hyped. I know it's probably going to be more megaman than viewtiful joe, but I'm okay with that.
Anyone who says this game is only okay or bad... they either just don't care for tokusatsu and kaiju stuff or they never played it all the way through.
Using the drawing mode was the gimmick sold to Nintendo to get the funding to develop and publish it initially. It's 100% obvious once you play it and figure out the combat and combos that this game is meant to be played with traditional controls.
I find it very annoying that people still don't understand this gamr despite there being easy to find combo videos, and people talking about what makes the game good. It has so much going on that there is definitely more to like than dislike. It's not flawless - the isometric camera is a pain for instance... but it's packed with charm, scale, coolness, and addictive combat and bosses.
Heck they even based a lot of the localization on the localized versions of toku we've gotten here. With the first boss being a literal Power Rangers Goldar reference with his voice acting.
People need to stop being weird about games thay aren't injecting marketing into their brains. Too often I see people say "They did a horrible job marketing this game!" — Bro... who cares? If the game is good then it's good. Obviously in the internet age somebody will play it and describe it on or around release. If people need marketing (aka psychological manipulation designed for business to profit) to convince them to buy a game... then I have lost a lot of faith in people who play games.
Comments 5
Re: Nintendo Files Two New Lawsuits In Continued Clamp Down On Switch Piracy
@Bluesaxo They don't have to pay. They're made to pay. You don't balance the books for a huge business and talk with their legals teams, tax experts etc etc.
You are sold a lie.
Re: Nintendo Files Two New Lawsuits In Continued Clamp Down On Switch Piracy
@WaffleRaptor01 Power dynamics exist. By your metric Robinhood was the villain.
And the Sheriff was morally correct because he was upholding the law.
Those with more wealth - and power are not somehow beholden to the same rights when they themselves often get to dictate the rights of those below them. Capitalism is broken, and the creators of these big publisher based videogames do not even recieve residuals.
Speaking of which, publishing is an evil business model - disguised as a service for creative people in most cases.
People who can't create - publish.
No. Stealing from the rich is always correct.
Oh, and in this scenario - I think Nintendo is in the right because the people doing it are exploiting piracy for profit. Something I don't condone. There is nuance to everything. The world is not bound to a black and white moral binary. There is a difference between downloading a game for yourself, and turning around and trying to sell that stolen content.
Re: Random: Welp, Now Nintendo's Going After Sheet Music
@FantasiaWHT correct. You cannot profit off somebody else's work. However if you transpose it yourself and change things about it... that is not a copyright issue. That is a plagiarism issue. If you share it for free, you are not breaking laws as long as the person you share it to isn't profiting off of it. If plagiarize it, but change a few things enough and title it something else - you can probably claim ignorance or inspiration. Music is tricky business. It's not as easily fought over as games themselves seem to be. This is because music has a long history of legal battles going back VERY VERY far in human history. It is seen as an artform by courts. Games are seen as products.
There's a reason John Williams estate isn't going around taking down covers of his songs on youtube. It's not an easy court battle, and there's a lot of precedent.
My theory is that these hosts either had 1:1 transcriptions of their music and/or they were making money off of them somehow directly, and assumed because they transposed them themselves they were "protected"
I don't think Nintendos legal team is going go after something where they can't win.
I'm sure there's more to the story.
Re: Random: Welp, Now Nintendo's Going After Sheet Music
This is actually outside of their rights to do. Musical arrangements cannot be owned, and the only grounds they could take is plagiarism, assuming the individuals profit of it and if they try and take credit. Another hilarious thing where this oversteps bounds is that if these arrangements were created by an indvidual by ear - then they are recreating that piece of music. There is a reason that you can't go after people for making covers of songs because they are essentially transforming the music. The same thing here with arrangements.
If the hosts were hosting official transcriptions of the music that could be warrant for that, but trying to take down another persons arrangement of your music because you just don't want them to is silly.
Even funnier is that what exactly are they trying claim? The melody most likely.
Well here's a funny loophole! Remake the sheet music, change a few notes, timings, chords... then name it something like Theme of the Hero in Green! Inspired by Nintendos Legend of Zelda series. Bam. Protected. Though probably not in Japan, but ***** 'em.
This one is a losing battle if anyone were to actually fight them on it because there's very LONG standing precedent for it. Sorry Nintendo - you lose this one.
Re: Platinum Teases Brand New Wonderful 101: Remastered DLC Update
Honestly hyped. I know it's probably going to be more megaman than viewtiful joe, but I'm okay with that.
Anyone who says this game is only okay or bad... they either just don't care for tokusatsu and kaiju stuff or they never played it all the way through.
Using the drawing mode was the gimmick sold to Nintendo to get the funding to develop and publish it initially. It's 100% obvious once you play it and figure out the combat and combos that this game is meant to be played with traditional controls.
I find it very annoying that people still don't understand this gamr despite there being easy to find combo videos, and people talking about what makes the game good. It has so much going on that there is definitely more to like than dislike. It's not flawless - the isometric camera is a pain for instance... but it's packed with charm, scale, coolness, and addictive combat and bosses.
Heck they even based a lot of the localization on the localized versions of toku we've gotten here. With the first boss being a literal Power Rangers Goldar reference with his voice acting.
People need to stop being weird about games thay aren't injecting marketing into their brains. Too often I see people say "They did a horrible job marketing this game!" — Bro... who cares? If the game is good then it's good. Obviously in the internet age somebody will play it and describe it on or around release. If people need marketing (aka psychological manipulation designed for business to profit) to convince them to buy a game... then I have lost a lot of faith in people who play games.