Slashdot Mirror

This: http://www.explodingrabbit.com/

Didn't face nearly as much opposition. It was up for months and Nintendo never really gave a care. Only when the author wanted to sell a version did Nintendo strongly suggest that he invent his own characters. But you can still play Crossover for free.

Nintendo seems picky and choosy about this stuff. Sort of like Atari!

Don't forget about Super Mario Bros. Crossover! http://www.explodingrabbit.com/games/super-mario-bros-crossover Almost the same idea and it's an amazing game.

Well, Super Mario Bros. Crossover is still out there.

http://www.explodingrabbit.com/games/super-mario-bros-crossover I came across a similar project last month. It has been active for about a year now and features the original mario levels that you can play through with any of several other old NES characters. Maybe Nintendo is actually playing nice with the fan community?

Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?

NO. I specifically said, "and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results". Once the copyright holder makes that request of the search provider, they must take prompt, reasonable action to remove the material. This is all in US Code Title 17 Section 512, if you'd care to actually educate yourself instead of just stating your idealization of the world as fact.

Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?

The Internet Archive has settled multiple lawsuits, in what is basically an admission that they were in violation of copyright. Most copyright holders don't go after them because it would be bad PR for little to no gain. It's the same reason Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Tecmo, and Sunsoft haven't sued the pants off the guy who made this game.

I think the issue of remaking classic games is pretty vague. This guy's game looks 100% derivative from the screenshots and gameplay description, but what if he added some new gameplay elements that Namco never bothered to incorporate? What if his game is significantly more fun than the "real" Pac Man? The real answer in that case is that he would have been better advised to make an original IP through graphics, names, and avoidances of the Pac Man association.

But what if nostalgia is one of the key contributors to something's quality? A very good argument for allowing near-perfect remakes is Super Mario Bros Crossover:
http://www.explodingrabbit.com/games/super-mario-bros-crossover

The game is more fun than the sum of its component games/characters available for legal purchase on the Wii Marketplace. Nintendo would never have made this game (without maybe employing unwanted 3D graphics and a $40-$50 price tag), but the demand is clearly there. Is the whole package enough to justify ignoring Nintendo's copyright claims (if they made them)? When is a derivative product justified or not? I'm curious.

Want to avoid DMCA woes? Don't make a pixel-for-pixel copy of someone else's game.

It wasn't literally "pixel-for-pixel" and that's part of the problem. People think you have to literally make a digital or photographic copy for it to be copyright infringement. This is not true. It has always been copyright infringement to recreate an image by painting, drawing, or digitally imitating it if it ends up resembling the original enough that a reasonable person would take it to be a copy, except in limited circumstances (such as parody, social commentary etc. which this game is clearly not). So not only don't make a pixel-for-pixel copy, don't draw from scratch something that ends up looking like a copy either.

Or you could do what this guy did and do make a pixel-for-pixel copy that adds enough awesomeness that even though it would be an open-and-shut case the original copyright holders don't even want to take action for fear of squelching the awesomeness.