Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Lawsuits Aided by Fans
Guppy06 writes "Last week there was a posting about Nintendo's efforts to crack down on people selling counterfeit Nintendo hardware and software, and there was at least one reply from a guy who reported someone to Nintendo. It turns out he's not alone; according to a posting at Nintendorks, NOA's Jodi Daugherty, their director of anti-piracy efforts, says it was helped by over 400 people reporting such kiosks to them."
Nintendo probably has a more loyal fan base at this time. Rather than the Record Industry pain in the butt Sony, or the Borgish I could bash them forever Microsoft. What harm has Nintendo really done to people other than sue the occasional Warez site distributing old Nintendo ROMS? People get cheap crap from these imitation game consoles, and see a Nintendo piracy hotline somewehere infuriated they give them a call...
...in bed
Music fans reporting file sharers.
I have been living and working in China for the past year. There is a street in my city dedicated to console games and equipment. Some of the Game Cube knock-off hardware is incredible. They make the game console smaller, prettier, more see-through-ish, higher quality and cheaper. I know that piracy is the issue here, but it's interesting to see what other designers can do to improve the console.
Despite how often we trash the RIAA etc. for their (misguided) attempts to defend copyrights, this just proves that if you treat your customers well and produce quality products, you'll be paid back. I'da turned 'em in too. Rock on Nintendo.
There was a "toys and games" shop that opened near my house, i thought nothing of it untill my friend said they were selling SNES games for $2 for any game, buy 2, get 2 free. so i headed down there. turns out they were selling counterfeit systems all the way up to the N64, and every game you could think of... I emailed nintendo, and got an amusing thank you note..
I probably helps that nintendo has been seen (as far as I know) as a company that has had a long long history of being a rather "good", innovative, and untainted (compared to it's counterparts). I personally like nintendo, regardless of what others say.
so the cult of mac gets knocked out of first place. :)
No offense, but now that you have gotten away with that and won't likely see any reprocussions to what you have done, do you honestly feel that you would have had the same opinion if you and your family were sued into the street when you were 14?
--
"pain is weakness leaving the body."Almost unconsciously, I have categorized nearly all brand names I know into one of two categories: those I imagine to be supported by die hard, underdog loving fans and those embraced by the conformist, top of the game crowd. Although I realize that some of these associations are flat out absurd, they sit in my mind as such, nonetheless. I am curious if others have the same type of relationships in the back of their minds:
y (and more recently, Microsoft)a mp(rip):WiMP
*Apple:Microsoft
*Linux:Windows
*Nintendo:Son
*Armadillo Aerospace:Scaled Composites
*Blizzard:Valve
*Mozilla:Internet Explorer
*Texas Instruments:Hewlett Packard (despite TI's market hold)
*Star Trek:Star Wars
*Archos:Apple
*Find-a-drug:Seti@home
*Win
I wonder how much of this is my personal bias and how much is a result of clever advertising. Clearly, some of these comparisons are not legitimate or accurate, but the vast majority are. Regardless, those are the pairs I imagine. It's the fans of those things on the left that I feel would go out of their way for their cause.
I'm sure I will get modded down for this, but I honestly don't think "pirating" classic NES games, which are up to 20 years old now, is that wrong. Nintendo made a lot of money off the NES, but at this point the market for the classic Mario and Donkey Kong games is limitied to the nostalgic crowd, most of whom legitmately bought the games when they were kids. Why should we have to shell out 20 bucks for a game that we not only already bought, but that pales in comparison to newer games regarding programming time and complexity? In my opinion, these old games should be freely given to the community who made Nintendo what it is today instead of whored out by the marketing department of Nintendo to squeeze the last few cents out of them.
The early/late 90s would prove otherwise. The dedicated Macies bought their 840AV's and Power Machintosh's, but Apple was SERIOUSLY stuggling until Jobs came in and saved them with brilliancy-after-brilliancy (iMac, revilalized laptop division, iPod, iTunes music store, Mac Stores) in an effort to win new customers.
The parent correctly states that, unlike apple, nintendo can stay profitable with only their main hardcore customer base. Case in point: the GameCube, hardly a smash, is still enourmously successful: Nintendo has been profitable for 11 of the 12 quarters of it's existence. Yes, this includes GBA sales, but big N is known (at least AFAIK) that it sells each console unit at a profit.
If copyrights lasted for only 20 years like they were meant to, then these kiosks would be legit.
Except that the NES was released in the US in '85, only 19 years ago. Not to mention that games were being made for it all the way up to 1994.
We're always told how America is the Land of the Free Market and Government Regulation is a Bad Thing. Yet the instant someone tries practising free-market economics for real over there, they're suddenly evil. What the hell difference is there between this type of counterfeiting, and what every supermarket is doing with its "own brand" copies of bestselling goods anyway? Isn't Tesco Rich Blend Instant Coffee just counterfeit Nescafé? Aren't Sainsbury's Rice Pops just counterfeit Kellogg's Rice Krispies? What's the freakin' difference already?
Joe Punter isn't going to be fooled for one minute into believing this sort of thing is endorsed by Nintendo. Nor, at that price, is he going to be bothered whether it is or not. All it has to do is keep the kids entertained for longer than they will take to break it. Realness isn't part of the equation. And if some third party can satisfy the relevant factors, then they're going to be the ones that get the money. Pure and simple.
It's the same thing with the obviously fake designer clothing sold on market stalls, and those awful fake Rolex watches you can spot a mile off {hint: a real Rolex does not go around in jerks. Just on the wrists of jerks}. Nobody's expecting it to be real, and nobody's disappointed that it isn't.
You know, just maybe if perhaps "official" stuff wasn't so overpriced, there might be a chance that people perhaps wouldn't feel so much of an urge to counterfeit it, possibly. It's all very well to say that if you're poor and have principles, you should do without; and I should know all there is to know about doing without. But while there are all these big rich corporations wanting to eat their cake and have it*, while simultaneously shoving it in your face that if you don't have foo you're obviously a loser, what the hell kind of example is that setting?
* I just think it sounds better that way around.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Your quaint story aside, one has nothing to do with the other. Realize that now in the age where CD and even DVD recorders exist, the video game industry has just recently surpassed the film industry in terms of revenue. Halo 2 is now the highest grossing (maybe in the shortest amount of time, something like that) media item ever.
There's no hard luck among the major players, least of all Sony. If the quality has gone down in games, it's because the big media publishers have realized just how big a buck can be made from games. Just like when the film and music industry big boys figured this out, they've begun to sell you the most efficient media available: old wine in new bottles. If the quality's gone down of late, it's they've found (in enough cases to make them a profit, anyway) that innovation doesn't usually have as high a yield as simply putting out the same crap over and over again.
--- What
I'm pretty sure Harley Davidson has a more loyal following among their customers. As my Marketing professor used to say, "How many companies have customers willing to tattoo the brand name on their arm for no other reason than they enjoy their products"
You said...
"In that case, copyright violation might be a legal issue, but never an ethic or moral one."
So in your opinion there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with filesharing of copyrighted movies and music?
"Many people feel they aren't harming anyone when they copy a work that they wouldn't spend any money to buy, under any circumstances. "
IMO this statement is false, many more people would buy the movies, music, games, etc. if they were not freely available on the internet. To believe that all of the filetraders would simply turn off their stereos, stop playing their Xboxes, unplug their PC's and go read a book because they can no longer download warez, mp3's, movies, etc. seems completely ridiculous. While I am sure a few would escew all forms of entertainment, the majority would begin to buy again.
A good example...
An aquaitance of mine who deals in this sort of stuff, downloaded Halo 2 (French version) to "try it out before he bought it". "Great game" he said, I need to go preorder it. Now the English version hits the warez sites...do you think he is pre ordering it anymore...no! This is a sale lost! I can guarantee he would have purchased it had the English version not been released to the newsgroups.
Personally I find his attitudes despicable. He is more than able to purchase software, as it is not a monetary issue, but he has no impetus to because it is all available at the click of a mouse and better yet...it's free.