Slashdot Mirror
Full Screen Mario: Making the Case For Shorter Copyrights
barlevg writes "A college student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute spent nine months meticulously remaking Super Mario Bros. based on the latest web standards. His project is open source and the code freely available through Github. The site recently gained widespread media attention, which unfortunately brought it to the attention of Nintendo, which has requested that the site be taken down. In a column on the Washington Post website, tech blogger Timothy Lee makes the case for how this is a prime example of copyrights hindering innovation and why copyright lengths should be shortened. Among his arguments: copyrights hinder innovation by game designers seeking to build upon such games, and shortening copyright would breathe new life into games who have long since passed into obsolescence."
How is making an exactly duplication of another game "innovation"?
Super Mario Brothers ran at a steady framerate on a 1.7mhz 6502. This doesn't run smoothly on my 2.6ghz Core2Duo. Is this progress?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why not make your own sidescrolling platform game instead of slavishly reproducing someone else's? Oh that's right, you want to take advantage of all the hard work and marketing already done by Nintendo.
copying an entire game is innovation?
It's not about this ONE version of Mario, it is about the whole franchise, which is far from obsolete.
why.
No innovation was lost, he didn't have to use Mario, he could have made his own game and done all of this. Instead he used Mario
I don't think this demonstrates that copyrights hinder innovation. SMB was the motivation for him to create this site, but he still would have been able to be just as innovative if he didn't copy SMB exactly and made his own game similar to SMB.
Just like Patent Law, Copyright Law is not the way it is because it makes sense.
It is the way it is because it is in certain entities' interest, and they are very good at protecting their interests.
Until money in politics changes, we can "make the case" until we're blue in the face, but things won't change.
Is the real issue here the particular Mario game, or the Mario franchise? Sure, Nintendo probably doesn't care too much about the PC game by itself, but failure to protect the franchise would greatly limit their ability to come out with Mario (new or otherwise) games on other platforms.
There's no reason that the game has to use the character designs of the original. They are using the Mario name to gain attention. Of course they are going to be sued.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
He copied Nintendo's character and level design as accurately as possible. How is this innovation? Create your own levels and characters you tool!
and they have the balls to quote the 70+ year copyright BS. Some old video games are stuff on old hardware / old PC hardware that is hard to find parts for and a lot of the older pc based arcade games are tied to older chip sets or may be on old HDD's that can fail taking the code with them. Also ROM based games can have bit rot and battery acid damage.
What about the case for spreading awareness on how copyright law works?
Why not try work with Nintendo from the outset?
He knew it was copyrighted.
He didn't bother to contact them for a business deal where he'd share a large portion of the ad revenue / usage fees it would generate.
... rather than shorter copyright terms.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That can even now days that may have a unknown owner makeing finding who has the rights hard.
which is why Nintendo remakes games so often (Star Fox, Mario, Zelda, all had recent remakes from the N64 and Gamecube era).
Budding game designers get a chance to remake a game and release it it's a tremendous learning opportunity. It also provides them with a solid basis to launch new work.
As an Example, take the Giana sisters. Started as a Super Mario clone in the C64 era, but I don't think anyone would say this has much of anything to do with Super Mario besides being a platformer.
Me? I could live with the long copyrights if we also had big social safety nets and Basic Income (google the phrase if you don't recognize it). A lot of great stuff comes out of Canada and Europe because their socialized health care gives people the freedom to take risks you can't do in the states...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's cloning a very famous game on a newer playform, clearly illegal in all copyright laws around the world. The same law that protects out beloved GPL projects. Mario is protected as much as that stupid mouse, and Nintendo are every bit as protective of their stuff as Disney.
There's nothing stopping this kid from changing the assets to not be a blatant rip-off and releasing it as yet another clone.
Sure is a whole lot of AC strong-copyright astroturf on this thread so far. The BSA drones are hard at work.
Finally, RPI is more famous than MIT.
Haiku for you!
He did not want to compose another Quixote —which is easy— but the Quixote itself. Needless to say, he never contemplated a mechanical transcription of the original; he did not propose to copy it. His admirable intention was to produce a few pages which would coincide—word for word and line for line—with those of Miguel de Cervantes.
"I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
Assume that there were no copyright violations. This is still a clear cut trademark violation. I'm not sure how this case is even questionable. The right thing to have done would have been to go to Nintendo and asked permission to license Mario to do a web based version. Nintendo might have been receptive, and have been willing to grant some sort of license as it is kinda cool. But heck yeah, they own Mario.
This is like me releasing a soda called "old fashioned Coke" using 1970s style soda ingredients.
Nintendo's design work is generally so much better that it's not an issue. Does Intuit worry about Microsoft Money destroying Quickbooks? Not so much.
It might impair Nintendo's ability to crank out mediocre crap (I'm looking at you Super Mario 3D Land) but overall I don't think that's Nintendo's intention. Nintendo, like Sega, are craftsman that make games. They might screw up sometimes, but it's not for lack of trying, and they mostly get it right. Much as I love Indie platformers, very few come close to Nintendo levels of quality. Frogotto and Friends is the only one in recent memory and even it's not prefect.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1) The Mario intellectual property is of course crucial to Nintendo, as it one of their most important brand, and they keep releasing works that feature him.
2) Besides that, Nintendo is still making money by selling _this specific work_ on Virtual Consoles (so, people are still happily paying for this, even decades later).
Noone ever copies metroid
Nintendo isn't hindering technical innovation in this case, they need to protect their trademarked character. There was no necessity for this project to use their characters. There is also no claim to artistic innovation, since the project is a port. The student could have chosen from a bunch of other freeware/abandonware to use for his project, or simply developed his own with similar gameplay mechanics.
For all the good arguments for copyright reform out there, this isn't one of them.
Since when did copying an existing work become innovation?
Seriously, if you want to use the term innovation it should be in reference to something new.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment that copyright terms are indefensibly long, but it's important to recognize that the game is not subject to copyright. The original source code is, as is the artwork from the game. The characters of Mario and Luigi, as well as the Mario Borthers name and logo are trademarked.
The students could very well have innovated by making a rip-off game without any covered elements to it, but they wanted to make something looked exactly like the Nintendo game (trademarks and all). The thing is that in the US, trademarks are unique in that if you do not defend them, you can lose them. If Nintendo didn't react, then they could lose their trademarks. Were I Nintendo, I would approach the students about licensing the trademark (say, for $1 so long as they kept the terms of the arrangement a secret) rather than face any sort of backlash for being heavy handed - they save face and defend their trademark in a single act.
Innovation or not, I'd rather be reading a story about a student using his undoubted abilities to advance the human cause. Remaking Mario is the depth of irrelevance.
"copyrights hinder innovation by game designers seeking to build upon such games, and shortening copyright would breathe new life into games who have long since passed into obsolescence."
It's a good argument, but a crappy example. Nintendo's not a great company to point to here, because they tend to release and re-release anything popular they've made. Mario Bros, I know, is available on the Wii and Wii U at least via the Wii shop (maybe also on the Wii U's virtual console). It's also been re-released in several incarnations before that. It's still pretty popular for a game of its age.
Why not point to the forgotten gems? I just heard that there was to be a remake of Day of the Tentacle, that was canned. I wasn't even aware such a thing was in the works until it was gone. :-(
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Apparently, innovation recommends I specifically use Google Chrome to play the game but offers to let me attempt to try it in other browsers.
I agree that Nintendo's suit based on copyright is counterproductive - that, in fact, anything that's been on the market for 30 years has outlived any need for protection under Copyright law. Limit it to the same duration enforced for patents - 14 + 14 - and I think we come closer to the intent of the founding fathers (who probably would argue that even 7 years was an incredible head start...).
But Nintendo could still have shut this project down through trademark protection. Indeed, they are obligated under trademark law to shut the site down or at least force a formal licensing agreement out of the author (and a corresponding change in the open source license terms...). SMB and its characters remain prominent symbols not only of the Mario franchise but also Nintendo as a company - there's no way they could let this go.
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
Ok, Fair play, I've downloaded and played this and it's a spectacularly well done game. Very very well done. So all credit to the guy for coding such a faithful copy of Super Mario Bros.
But to say it's stifling innovation is a HUGE stretch. What the guy has done is "borrow" or exacly copy some other company's artwork, sound effect, game design, game levels, BRAND, and idea. Mario is probably Nintendo's biggest still active brand and for all we know maybe they planned to publish their own web based version of this all time classic. if it was abandonware, or a defunct brand, you MIGHT argue they're being petty. But c'mon.. fair enough they've asked him to stop copying something they're still actively using and generating revenue from.
The guy who coded this is clearly very talented, I'm sure a few tweaks here and there: Changing Mario to "Pauley" Princess Peach to "Princess Maria" a few small sprite changes here and there and changing the name to NOT say Mario and Nintendo would probably leave him alone.
You could well argue that exactly BECAUSE of copyright this will encourage the developer to genuinely innovate and create something that isn't an exact clone.
You absolutely do not want company A to have the ability to pretend to be company B. It might seem trivial over Mario or Disney characters but symbology is how companies sign their 'good' name to a product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
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!
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not even close. It handles like shit. Jumping is laggy, stopping is slippery, turning is sluggish. Tried in Firefox 24 and Chrome 30 (really? THIRTY? jesus)
14 year terms, required registration and a possible (single) 14 year extension would go a long way to restoring sanity in copyright.
Now, this would require abrogating / modifying an international treaty, but I don't see why I should care given that the whole point of such treaties is to put these matters beyond the reach of the mere legislatures and parliaments of democratic governments. (If you doubt this, you really need to follow how such treaties are negotiated.)
Isn't this actually a trademark issue and not a copyright issue? This is a 1:1 copy of someones work. Yay for him duplicating it in a different medium but "Mario" is a trademark. The original game is a trademark. The style of the blocks and landscape is probably a trademark. If Nintendo abandoned the Mario trademark then you'd be allowed to do what ever you wanted with it.
Boggs is an artist who makes accurate, but one-sided, copies of banknotes and then uses them to purchase things on the grounds that what he's actually doing is trading art for a service or product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._S._G._Boggs Rather similar to making a perfect clone of a copyrighted game.
soylentnews.org
Where's the dividing line between Oracle v. Google on one side (cloning legal) and Tetris v. Xio on the other (cloning illegal)?
Copyrights will continue to be extended indefinitely as long as that hundred year old mouse is around.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Noone ever copies metroid
What do you think every Castlevania game since the PS1 has been?
You do, in fact, sound like a tool.
[j/k]
the subject.
The intent of copyright, as far as I am aware, is for an inventor to have a fair chance of getting money out something they invented, without someone copying his invention and getting money for it without having to do the inventing part first.Once they figured that you could also sell these copyrights or make them property of non-natural persons, the problems started.
Yes, there was an intention of a period of time that a copyright should be valid, so once the inventor got his chance to make money, the rest of the world would be allowed to use it too. That wasn't the reason they came up with copyright, it was just a measure they had to come up with so after the inventor got his fair chance, the rest of the world would eventually be able to use the invention as well.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Well, all ideas needs a inspiration to exist in the first place. Technicaly no idea comes from nothing, you allways have to use something that was created or discovered by another such as tools, designs, histories or something. If the copyright idead was really to be a valid excuse for inovation, we would be paying for everything the we use to create something.
If it is actually part of the law, can you please point out the places in title 17 where it is actual defined and used? It would help clarify things instead lettings everyone assume their own idea of "personal use" is embedded in the law.
I can appreciate the appeal of meticulously recreating a game. That said, I don't personally see what's so satisfying about it. If you've got the skill to do this you've also got the skill to make a unique game.
On top of that, if a company just wants to crush your efforts why continue doing them any favors? Regardless of whether or not Nintendo is appreciative, they're getting free marketing from this. Just change all the assets so that it looks and sounds like something unique. Stop supporting Nintendo.
In literature, at least, a case can be made that copyrights slow down the literacy rate of a society. Having great works of literature available in the public domain encourages people to read more and more. What a wonderful joy to be able to read great works of literature, simply by browsing a website where those works are available.
The world got along fine in the era before bean counters invented the copyright. Aristotle, Plato, Aeschylus, and Homer didn't have to fret about copyrights. Scribes transcribed great works of literature onto new media, and sometimes made improvements to the works in the process.
Scrolling back to the present, in using the GPL, Linus Torvalds spawned an industry and accelerated innovation. The student at RPI, who rewrote Super Mario Brothers, may have chosen a better way to prove his concept. He didn't harm Nintendo one bit, he gave the franchise free publicity.
...trademarks. Mario is still a trademark of Nintendo, he's still a live character, Nintendo are still making games with him in them.
Did Nintendo go apeshit over Super Tux Kart? No, because the player character is a penguin and not a plumber - but anyone who's played both will tell you that Super Tux Kart and Mariokart are, apart from the sprites, practically identical.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Minor nitpick: there are 64 original levels, not 32. Once you beat the game, you can play it through again a second time with slightly different levels and different (harder) enemies.
I haven't been able to trigger the 'infinite lives' bug/easteregg yet, but presumably it's there - or maybe he didn't know about it?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This is Why.
while
Mario still makes money for Nintendo. Yes. Even the very first Mario.
Fullpage mario is probably the worst example of obsolete games (it holds up surprisingly well 30 years later with spit and polish).
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
So, nobody has posted a link to the torrent yet? I am disappointed folks.
In claiming a copy right there is an implicit contract with society that at the end of the copy right you will release the art to the world. How will video game makers do this if the machines to run there games no longer exist? How will the BBC do this for Doctor Who if they have lost some of the episodes. Nintendo should prove that it still has the means to release these games to the public domain or lose the copyrights.
I am all for shortening copyright. However, pro GPL pundits, realize that without copyright the GPL is no longer in effect after it has passed.
It's not faithful at all, it plays completely differently. Physics is off, enemies appear sooner (because of the larger FOV). The only way it's "faithful" is in level layout and graphical content. I've seen other clones in the past with 1:1 level layout that were even less faithful than this attempt.
FC Closer
you've obviously never had a brand worth a damn protecting.
come back when you've invented something iconic and then someone completely copies it to T - not even renaming shit to "super cloned brothers" or some other thing.
yes IP laws should be required. But then again you've never invented anything anyone wants to use, or loves on a mass scale, so you can't relate.
These characters are property of the corporations that paid to have them created.
Cloning an old game is not innovative. Sure its cool to use new technology to bring the game to a new generation, but you are using existing innovations already created. For instance, the innovation of the game content, the innovation of the browser and web technology. Finding a way to combine other people's innovations is not innovative. Nothing was invented when porting SMB to a web app.
If you want to be innovative use the skills obtained while trying to clone a copyrighted game and create your own original game.
Shorter copyrights will lead to future generations of people that will not have a single original idea, which is the complete ANTITHESIS of innovation!
If you can't use someone's IP then you have to invent your own. That is innovation..
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
"Obsolescence" means the process of becoming obsolete, so the product is not yet obsolete.
Care to revise your statement?
Are you able to understand the original source?
"copyrights hinder innovation by game designers seeking to build upon such games, and shortening copyright would breathe new life into games who have long since passed into obsolescence"
Isn't the games life or death ultimately Nintendo's to decide? Is the argument that if Nintendo decides to shelf a game, or not release anything new in "x" number of years, that it is open season and anyone can take their game and "come out with the next version".
Does that mean that if a movie doesn't come out with a sequel, that I'm free to do it on my own "to breathe new life into movies that have long since passed into obsolescence"?
tl/dr
I disagree whole heartedly and think the kids are butthurt they couldn't co-opt a registered trademark.
Persona's do not expire until they are forgotten. Research will be needed by others and should/might have temporary locks.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
Think up something else that's original, lol.
Everyone keeps talking copyright, but Super Mario Bros. is a registered Trademark of Nintendo. Nintendo are still making Mario games, and it is very easy for anyone not familiar with the project to confuse it for a genuine Nintendo product, especially as the game has the Nintendo name and copyright notice on it. Thus, it is a Trademark dispute as well as a copyright dispute.
I don't see how this is hindering innovation, as the game engine that Josh developed can still be used by Josh to develop other things. The things which are copyrighted have nothing to do with any of the innovation that was done. Josh could have made a platform game like Mario without ripping off Mario, and without the copyright trouble. I doubt he would have got the publicity though.
It's very simple solution. Change the name, change the graphics and music, then let the people who want to create their own levels etc start doing so. In fact, if Josh reads this, you can chuck the graphics and music etc out there as well for the open community to help add their own as well. Change the name to 'Joshie's World' or something, remove the Nintendo copyright and stuff as well and add your own name and Copyright info.
I might add, I'm all for copyright, (people who put the time, effort etc into creating these things need to be paid and should be able to make money for their effort), but I agree with the article, that copyright goes for way too long. 30 years on a game would be a good amount of time (even 20 years).
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)