Mario 64 Remake Receives a DMCA Complaint From Nintendo

jones_supa writes: Well, we saw this one coming. Just a couple of days after computer science student Erik Roystan Ross released a free recreation of the first level of Nintendo's 1996 Super Mario 64, Nintendo filed a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint. It was sent to the content distribution network CloudFlare and the complaint asked to immediately disable public access to the page hosting the remade game. CloudFlare forwarded the complaint to the person hosting Ross' game, after which the hosting provider (a friend of Ross) had to take the game down. Nintendo also sent Ross takedown notices for his downloadable desktop versions of the Bob-Omb Battlefield. Nintendo is famously protective of its copyright, taking issue even with "Let's Play" videos posted on YouTube and threatening to shut down live-streamed Super Smash Bros tournaments."

Comments

Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo defines Corporate Social Responsibility as "Putting Smiles on the Faces of Everyone Nintendo Touches." Nintendo of America, working closely with our parent company, Nintendo Co., Ltd., strives to embody this definition in our business activities and interactions with all of our stakeholders.

- http://www.nintendo.com/corp/csr/

I bet this put a smile on the face of Mr. Ross! Just another in the long line of community management bungles from Nintendo.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[cfalcon]

I mean, sure, I'm a fan of Nintendo... ...But here's the thing. Mario 64 is a game that Nintendo actively remakes, updates, and sells. It's on their shop RIGHT THIS SECOND, updated to work with all the new controllers and whatever on the Wii-U. What legal precedent do they set if they allow a guy to just flat out reimplement their game? Note that they are going with "DMCA takedown"- that's a reasonably soft pitch that doesn't land some cool coder in real legal troubles.

Note that unlike most DMCA (ab)use, this isn't "a website where I told you how to read data on your drive" or "a hyperlink, which is magically indistinguishable from the real thing now" or "an emulator unrelated to our characters, games, or code". This is, some guy made a version of their game and put it online. A game they actively sell for their current system (they may even be making the DS version).

I just don't see this as something that, legally, they can leave up there.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[maugle]

That's a strange motto for Nintendo to have. Between copyright shenanigans like this, their abusive partner program on YouTube, and their infamous treatment of third-party developers, a better slogan might be "We Make Games, Fuck You".

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[dissy]

They're terrified of their brand ever being associated with "adult" material because parents might sue them for said exposing their child to hypothetical adult material.

That must be why Nintendo partnered with Playboy to promote the Nintendo exclusive release of Bayonetta 2.

http://wiiudaily.com/2014/10/nintendo-partners-with-playboy-to-promote-bayonetta-2/
http://bayonetta2.nintendo.com/
http://www.playboy.com/galleries/pamela-horton-nintendo-bayonetta/slide-1

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.

This is NOT a fully game re-implemented but I wonder if we'd be better off allowing full fan-fiction games, art, etc under the 1st amendment, freedom to express, freedom to make art, with the publics interest in mind.

I would say a 'parody work' that remakes the game top-to-bottom should be allowed, in the creators own mind and image, but a complete dupe of Nintendo's original work might be a "counterfeit" or "illegal duplication."

Certainly a mere single world recreation is akin to taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP.

This guy's demo is probably legal but he doesn't have a lawyer to take his case to court to test the waters.

NOTE ON DMCA: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH A DMCA TAKE DOWN NOTICE. YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO THAT IF YOU WANT DMCA SAFE HABOUR STATUS. OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAW AS IT EXISTED BEFORE DCMA. THE DEMO CREATOR CAN PUT HIS DEMO BACK UP AFTER NOTIFYING HIS HOST AND CLOUDFLARE THAT HE IN FACT OWNS THE CONTENT AND WHAT HE MADE WAS LEGAL, INCLUDING A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW NINTENDO DOESN'T OWN HIS IP. LEGALLY CLOUDFLARE AND HIS HOST CANNOT BE SUED, BUT HE CAN BE, BY NINTENDO - THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID COMPLY WITH DMCA. HE IS ACTUALLY ARGUING NINTENDO VIOLATED DMCA AND HIS CONTENT IS LEGAL, IE UNDER FAIR USE OR 1ST AMENDMENT. NINTENDO'S ONLY COURSE OF ACTION AT THAT POINT IS TO TAKE HIM TO US DISTRICT COURT PERSONALLY. IF THEY THINK THEY CAN WIN.

In US District Court, he can argue to his hearts desire why his demo was legal, perhaps to make precedent to stop other such false actions from occurring in the future.

Nintendo will have to prove the work violated copyright law to get an order from a judge to have it taken down.

This work looks like fair use, like a parody, like new content, like a transformation, like a demo, with public interest - art protected by the 1st amendment. That will be his argument in court.

And he can appeal it to a high court if he loses.

drrobertduncan.com.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[cheesybagel]

This only comes as a surprise to people who don't know Nintendo. They are one of the most lawsuit happy companies in the gaming market. In the 1980s they sued game developers who made their own game cartridges for the NES without paying for Nintendo for their "IP" to manufacture the cartridge. A lot of the time Nintendo even stalled these guys on purposes so they couldn't publish their games only to come with something quite similar of their own shortly after that. They were laughed out of court and the NES cartridge cloning business began. Today that we have stupid laws like the DMCA even that might happen today.

As for games they at one time sued Rainbow Arts for doing the Great Giana Sisters game claiming that it was too similar to the Mario games. Imagine making a game and calling it Mario. Good luck.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[fatwilbur]

I agree, Nintendo has to protect their copyright & trademarks for them to remain valid.

However, in a lot of cases I think the lawsuit/legal threat method shows these companies don't have a lot of ingenuity or common sense. Unless it's obviously taking sales away, why not meet with the guy and draw up a license for him to use the content for those purposes? It would be cheaper than any legal action (save perhaps just a threat) and moreover it's likely to generate some goodwill for your company if you support the fans of your products.

Why no one looks for a solution outside of (a) cease and desist permanently and immediately or (b) lawsuit is beyond me.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[maorb]

Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.

Fair use only allows certain excerpts to be used under certain conditions. IANAL and I'm not familiar with all court cases that that might have affected the interpretation of U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107 (the portion of copyright law that implements the "Fair Use" exception), but this might not be covered under that.

That section of the law specifies a few example purposes that can be covered and the closest example is "Scholarship", which this might fall under. I don't think that that is guaranteed though since the use of Mario and related ideas (Goombas, Bob-ombs, etc) as well as the first level of Super Mario 64 was not required for Ross to learn to use or demonstrate the Unity engine, and releasing his work afterwards beyond the video trailer was definitely not needed for the purposes of scholarship (whereas if he released this as part of a project in a class to other students it would have been).

Having said all that, I feel that Nintendo missed a great opportunity for positive PR by not instead contacting Ross and retroactively giving him permission to use the content found in the first world of Super Mario 64 to make this recreation and then using the project to generate excitement for more complete and official re-releases.

This is NOT a fully game re-implemented but I wonder if we'd be better off allowing full fan-fiction games, art, etc under the 1st amendment, freedom to express, freedom to make art, with the publics interest in mind.

This actually perfectly describes one of the things US copyright law is specifically designed to prevent. You have to freedom to make your own art like a 3D platformer game, but you do not necessarily have the freedom to use other people's art, such as the character of Mario or distinctive level designs made by other people, as a part of your art. This was supposed to be off-set by older works passing into the public domain, but that part of the system got broken by Disney; Shame on them.

I would say a 'parody work' that remakes the game top-to-bottom should be allowed, in the creators own mind and image, but a complete dupe of Nintendo's original work might be a "counterfeit" or "illegal duplication."

A parody game is definitely allowed, but you need to remember what a parody is. It generally needs to be humorous twisting of the original work the results in an ironic meaning. An example of a parody would be "Stinkoman 20x6" from Homestarrunner.com (man, didn't think I'd mention that website ever again) which riffs on the Megaman series of side-scrolling video games, other examples include most "[insert popular anime name] the abridged series" videos on youtube. What Ross did is much closer to a duplication of the original work, in fact it's even being referred to as a modern recreation.

Certainly a mere single world recreation is akin to taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP.

This guy's demo is probably legal but he doesn't have a lawyer to take his case to court to test the waters.

This work looks like fair use, like a parody, like new content, like a transformation, like a demo, with public interest - art protected by the 1st amendment. That will be his argument in court.

This seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It might be like 3 minutes out of 2 hours in terms of relative length compared to the original work, but that does negate the fact that it's 20-60 minutes of gameplay, not 3 minutes. Additionally many aspects of the recreation would be separate copyrights, use of a likeness of Mario can violate copyright law on its own even without recreating a level from one of Nintendo's games.

You might think this guy's demo should be legal and that's your opinion, but I'm showing you another int

Re: Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[hackwrench]

Secret Maryo Chronicles has been around for quite some time. http://www.secretmaryo.org/

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[jklovanc]

You really need to look into fair use and DMCA.

Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.

True if those short excerpts are part of a bigger whole. In this case the copyright material is the whole work.

I would say a 'parody work'

Parody is not emulating the exact same game play as the original. There needs to be significant differences.

THE DEMO CREATOR CAN PUT HIS DEMO BACK UP AFTER NOTIFYING HIS HOST AND CLOUDFLARE THAT HE IN FACT OWNS THE CONTENT

The real process is as follows;
1. Someone posts material
2. A copyright holder files a DMCA take down notice.
3. The ISP takes the material down.
4. The poster files a counter claim.
5. The ISP forwards the claim to the person who filed the takedown notice.
6. The ISP will wait 10-14 days to allow the initial filer to start legal action.
7. If legal action does not occur the post goes back up. If it does the post stays down.

Nintendo will have to prove the work violated copyright law to get an order from a judge to have it taken down.

It is actually the other way around. Once a DMCA take down notice is filed and a legal action is started the material will stay down until a judge allows it up.

taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP

If the "new" work is only 3 minutes long then no it is not fair use.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[TerminaMorte]

OP is incorrect. Mario 64 is only on the Wii. You can access it via the Wii mode on the Wii U, but you CANNOT use new controllers.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[michelcolman]

There are legal reasons requiring companies to react to violations of their copyright and trademarks, since they may otherwise legally lose them. However, they could have just reacted with "place a notice on your website that we own all the trademarks and copyrights but gave you explicit permission to keep this excellent remake on your website as long as it's limited to part of the first level."

It's more publicity for their game and may actually lead to more sales from people trying out the web version and then buying the real thing. But alas, lawyers don't think that way.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[cfalcon]

You can't use the Wii-U specific ones, but you can use the Wii ones.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[Half-pint HAL]

Unless it's obviously taking sales away,

What you are proposing is called "shutting the door when the horse has bolted". It's like not building flood defenses "unless the river is obviously filling people's basements", or not tsunami-proofing your nuclear powerplant "unless a tsunami is obviously knocking out your backup systems and failsafes".

Nintendo's business model has incorporated nostalgia for decades. Sequels, remakes and reissues are their stock-in-trade, and most people are cool with that because they normally do a decent job of it. Allowing others to satiate consumers' nostalgia for free would be suicide to Nintendo.

No doubt some people will say "good -- it'll force them to be original for once", but that's nonsense. Nintendo are still engaged in more innovation than most publishers, who have cookie-cutter FPSes coming out of their ears.

Why no one looks for a solution outside of (a) cease and desist permanently and immediately or (b) lawsuit is beyond me.

Well first of all, a cease and desist is easier and cheaper than drawing up a legally binding contract that is guaranteed to generate no profit, and may serve to reduce sales; and secondly because they typically want the other party to cease and desist!

Re: Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[Half-pint HAL]

Many are creating their own games but the reason for copying is: human nature and it requires less work.

It's also easier to grab attention with. In the same week that this Mario64 clone was released, numerous original indie titles were presumably released, but they didn't get the press. Shutting down this sort of thing isn't just good for Nintendo, it's good for the indie scene too.

Re: Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[rioki]

Actually, brand recognition. Do you think that /. would have reported, some dude built some game in the browser. The only reason why this was news was because it mas a Mario 64 reproduction.

Re: Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[cheesybagel]

The probably didn't notice it exists. Better hope they continue not noticing it.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[Wootery]

What legal precedent do they set if they allow a guy to just flat out reimplement their game?

Actually, none. Copyrights aren't compromised by allowing infringements (unlike trademarks).

I agree with your other points though. Nintendo's position is reasonable. (Ignoring the copyright-duration debate, which is a separate issue.)

This isn't the first time we've seen this sort of response. Both fan remake projects of Chrono Trigger received Cease and Desist letters.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[VGPowerlord]

In the 1980s they sued game developers who made their own game cartridges for the NES without paying for Nintendo for their "IP" to manufacture the cartridge.

Are you attempting to revise history?

The court case in question is Atari Games Corp v. Nintendo of America, Inc,.

In this court case, Atari and their subsidiary Tengen were found guilty of copyright infringement after using false pretenses to obtain the code Nintendo used to lockout clone cartridges from the copyright office.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[StikyPad]

Exactly. If he had used different skins, he probably would have been fine too, since games are not copyrightable on their own; only elements like the characters and the appearance.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[cheesybagel]

Which disproves what I said that Nintendo are a bunch of lawsuit prone anti-competitive pricks in which way?

There were companies other than Tengen doing clone cartridges. Some of which did clean room reverse engineering.

Also Nintendo lost an anti-trust lawsuit against Atari and Sega in the late 1980s. Guess why.

Re:Nintendo "Corporate Social Responsibility":

[jklovanc]

I have NEVER seen a company follow through with a lawsuit once a DMCA takedown notice was contested.

How many DMCA notices have you been involved in? One only needs to file a suit if the poster files a counter claim. So many do not get to court as the filer knows they are infringing. Even then, very few copyright cases get publicity.

And you are actually talking about YouTube's process.

It is YouTube's process because it complies with Title 17 of the US Code. They didn't come up with it on their own. All US content providers follow the same procedure because it is the only one that protects them from law suits and follows the law.

But I have seen enough to know you can make your own arguments in court and your content can remain online unless they sue you.

What you "know" and what are the fact are two different things. Try reading this

And unless the DMCA issuer notified the OSP before then that they have filed an action in court seeking to restrain you from posting, the OSP must restore access to the removed material. 17 USC 512(g)(2).

The content remains of line if they sue you. The whole reason for the DMCA is to allow a quickremoval of infringing material and give the copyright holder some time to properly file the paperwork with the courts. Without those provisions the harm is done before the paperwork gets through the courts. Perhaps you might want to read the law before commenting on what you "know".

Re:Rescue your "Toadstool" by Joining GayWAD!

[TheReaperD]

Nothing sadder than a wannabe troll that trolls with everything he has and just can't troll. My dyslexic aphasiac roommate does it better, and I'm not trolling you on this fact. Find a new hobby.

How about other clones?

[sanf780]

I am sure my nephew has seen his share of Flash games that are clones of Mario games. And some of these games come from shady developers, I am sure of it. Thankfully he is now more interested in Minecraft.

Re:Copyright

[Em Adespoton]

This one's easy: Nintendo still sells games. They're afraid that if people start playing conversions of their old games (or even just start watching videos of other people playing old games), they'll have no incentive to go out and by their newer games/consoles.

The reality probably includes that, but also includes the fact that since IP goes so deep, any Nintendo games are likely to include IP licensed from others, with specific contract details outlining how the IP can be used. If some third party starts duplicating/redistributing this IP, things get messy.

Not the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is*. Shortening copyright to 14 years for digital works would fix a lot of this.

Re: Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

They do sell it for the virtual console in the Wii shop for 1000 points.

Re: Copyright

[sanf780]

I am sure it is sold to parents that do no know how differentiate a NDS from a 3DS (some brick and mortar shops still have a NDS section), and to the people that connected the WiiU to Internet. This is how large companies work today: sell me the same shit again and again. When is the 4K version of Star Wars coming out? I want it sooo badly.

Re:Copyright

[The MAZZTer]

Rumor has it tomorrow they will be announcing Super Mario 64 virtual console title for the Wii U. So yes, they DO make money off of it still! And don't forget the DS remake which still runs on their latest handhelds.

Re:Copyright

[cfalcon]

I mean, it's for sale for the Wii and Wii-U. I'm not sure if the DS version from 2004 is still being printed. It's certainly not abandonware.

Nintendon't

[nowsharing]

...2...1...Takedown! Corporations are totally out of touch with the streets. Nintendo is taking down all kinds of free fan marketing. They swatted one of Happy Console Gamer's videos that was basically a love-letter to the new Nintendo games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's ironic and infuriating. I hate all of the big three for these reasons. They'll pay for this stance in the long term. They're already going down the drain fast now, and soon they'll probably just be another poorly maintained IP for some other shit company to purchase.

Re:Nintendon't

[thegarbz]

Nintendo is taking down all kinds of free fan marketing

Duplicating a game on another platform that they still actively sell is not free fan marketing.

Re:Nintendon't

[nowsharing]

But it's not being sold... Hence, one re-made level of a game that they still sell is free fan-made marketing.

Re:Nintendon't

[thegarbz]

Yes it is. It will cost you 1000 Nintendo points and is available on the Wii and Wii-U though through the Nintendo Virtual Console.

You also fail to realise that Nintendo is a company which not only provide a lot of their old archives for sale online ported to a variety of other systems, but also frequently release old software completely re-written for new console as collectors packs like the original Super Mario series which you can still buy right now on disk at most shops which stock Wii games.

They aren't protecting abandon-ware.

Swap

[Tablizer]

Just replace all the objects and sounds with different things. Make Mario a green lumpy alien and replace all the stuff with whacky alien stuff. Name it Blamfoog*.

Flip the image so the green alien is jumping on the ceiling. It's the same gravity rules, just upside down. Nobody would even know it had anything to do with Mario if you don't tell them.

* Sounds like an open-source project name

Re:Swap

[cfalcon]

If you made a Mario 64 level (any of them), believe me, everyone would know. I think you underestimate how many times they've been played.

That's the whole thing though. If this demo hadn't used Mario, it wouldn't have made slashdot, like, twice. No one would have an opinion if it was just a cool game implemented interesting. It's news because it's Mario.

Copyright issue?

[mark-t]

Or trademark issue? Nintendo is using the DMCA here, but if the work contains none of Nintendo's code, then why would copyright apply?

Certainly I can see trademarks being an issue here, and it's only right that Nintendo try and put a stop to it.

Re:Copyright issue?

[mjwx]

Or trademark issue? Nintendo is using the DMCA here, but if the work contains none of Nintendo's code, then why would copyright apply?

Certainly I can see trademarks being an issue here, and it's only right that Nintendo try and put a stop to it.

Copyright would have more to do with art assets.

Even if the developer cleanroomed every texture and model from scratch, it was clearly intended to be a copy.

If the developer had just built the "super mario 64" engine and made his own game assets (erm, Super Silvio 64) he'd have a leg to stand on.

Re:Copyright issue?

[jeepies]

Because it contains their art assets.

Re:Copyright issue?

[Half-pint HAL]

This guy could have easily solved this DCMA problem by removing Nintendo assets and using his own.

...and designing his own level. Suddenly that word "easily" becomes inapplicable. In the days before orchestral soundtracks, gazillion-polygon reverse kinematic modelling and 4K-ready texture design (ie Mario64 era), the single biggest job in game design was making levels that played right.

Re:Copyright issue?

[Half-pint HAL]

Please explain how it would be a parody.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who didn't see this coming from a mile away?

Re:Hobby vs job

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for him, he did not create it all. He used many of the original assets.

Re:Copyright

[thegarbz]

Nintendo doesn't make money anymore with that specific game.

Yes they do. You can buy it right now on the Wii-U. We bought it for the Wii a few years ago. Nintendo have re-released a lot of their franchised greats over and over again on each new console. Heck they only released the SuperMario collections a few years ago with all the old classic games, ON A DISC. Not even a generic Nintendo store download, but a disc sold in the store with games remade to work on new consoles.

Re:Hobby vs job

[Anonymous Coward]

He's actually using the Mario model from Super Mario Galaxy. Further, it's only personal use if he doesn't distribute it. He released it for people to play in the browser via the Unity plugin. It was even released on Github I believe. It's pretty clear infringement here.

Of course, we all saw it coming ...

[Purity Of Essence]

... the moment Slashdot posted a story about it two days ago. Nintendo would not have cared if Slashdot and other big sites didn't overexpose this project. Too many fan games have been destroyed this way.

If you actually like these projects, carefully consider the consequences of your reporting.

If you want to play copyright tattletale, carry on.

Re:Hobby vs job

[ArhcAngel]

In that case he is fortunate all he got was a DMCA notice.

Re:Copyright

[jones_supa]

Shortening copyright to 14 years for digital works would fix a lot of this.

Wait, you have to consider all sides of that. Would that "fix" also cause smaller investments being made in game companies and their products? What is more important: cool, big, polished games from the original companies, or the permission for a hobbyist to make a Mario clone?

Archive.org's MAME ROM collection

[Anonymous Coward]

have they seen this yet?

sad :(

[seopro2691]

i remember mario is my first ever game that i played when i get to know what is gaming and believe me it's not just a game but it's my best childhood friend as well :) http://techpopat.com/

Re:Just when you thought...

[thegarbz]

Hardly. When a fan duplicates a game you still actively sell for multiple platforms I see no reason what so ever that Nintendo is in the wrong at stopping the distribution of said game.

Re:A Pyrrhic victory for Nintendo.

[thegarbz]

Way to cause everyone to hate you Nintendo. I hope you enjoy your no-none sales of your rehashed products.

Funny you mention sales of rehashed products. The product in question is still on active sale. It's not some abandoned old game that someone is breathing new life into.

Re:Copyright

[cfalcon]

"(Mario etc etc etc)"

Super Mario Bros. is not Super Mario Bros. 2. Neither is anything like Super Mario 3. The Zelda games are all very different from each other. Super Mario 64 is very different from Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario 3D World is also unlike the previous ones. The fact that they continue to rerelease older games seems odd until you remember that tons of people still buy them and play them.

Nintendo is certainly not a one-trick pony, even with their big franchises showing up again and again.

Re:Copyright

[Half-pint HAL]

Let me just check me Gog.com bookshelf...
"Broken Sword" I,II,III and IV (1996, 1997, 2003, 2006)
"Magic Carpet" (1994)
"Little Big Adventure" I (1994) and 2 (1997)
"Interstate 76" (1997)
"I have no mouth and I must scream" (1995)

I could go on, but I'll just finish with "Another World" (1991). If gog.com did MAME roms, I'd happily pay for even older stuff, like Pacman, Pengo and Mr Do.

Re:fair use

[Half-pint HAL]

it's parody like, too.

Please feel free to explain how an almost-exact copy of something is a parody. If I photocopy your CV, is that parody too?

Re:Hobby vs job

[Half-pint HAL]

... but not copyright as he hasn't "published" anything.

Hasn't he? I'm sure I saw the software available for download from a website. I must have been dreaming.

Re:Copyright

[jones_supa]

How is a copyright term of 14 years going to cause anyone to reduce their investments in game companies? Do you believe anyone seriously expects a video game to continue selling after 14 YEARS?

That's not unreasonable at all.

There's also another point here: if old games were automatically released into public domain after 14 years, some customers might not want to pay for new stuff at all, because there would be so much old games to play for free.

Re:Copyright

[dissy]

First just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I agree it is completely spot-on.
If anything my counter is directed at Nintendo and this choice of policy (not that anyone there would be reading this nor care if they did)

They're afraid that if people start playing conversions of their old games (or even just start watching videos of other people playing old games), they'll have no incentive to go out and by their newer games/consoles.

The thing with this line of reasoning is that there are many people like myself who aren't willing to purchase something we can't see or know anything about before buying it.

If I can't see screenshots of the amazing graphics, videos demonstrating the game play mechanics, see the first impressions from reviewers I respect the opinion of, or otherwise get some idea the game may be something I would enjoy playing and get value out of - I simply will not be purchasing it at all.

I have no problems paying a high price for something I believe will be of high value to me.
I also have no problem paying a low price if the value is expected to be low but still there.

What I do have a problem with is paying any price for something of unknown value. I simply refuse to do so.

Not to mention if it was a smaller less recognizable gaming company, going out of your way to hide all details about your game before getting my money strongly implies they know they are peddling garbage, and I can only assume such a purchase was designed to be a scam to take my money while providing no value.
It's worth noting that even the large companies like Nintendo are not immune from this gut reaction feeling. Only their past track record keeps me from assuming the worst.
But I still have to question what they are trying to hide, and why they can't be honest about their product so I can make an informed purchase.

Despite the fact their behavior is intended to prevent lack of sales, the reality is their behavior directly results in a lack of sales.

Re:Copyright

[Em Adespoton]

The point here is that in order to sell new games, they would need to advance the progress of science and the useful arts. That's what copyright is all about.

A new game that's like an old game, but can run on different hardware, with slightly improved graphics, slightly improved sound, and in-game purchases, does not advance the progress of science and the useful arts.

Basically, history shows that people are willing to pay for products that achieve what copyright sets out to achieve. People tend to find alternate ways of preserving their societal history when copyright is used as a means of artificial monopoly for the sake of holding our social heritage hostage.

Re:Rescue your "Toadstool" by Joining GayWAD!

[TheReaperD]

Yea, I'm glad too. It's just... sad.

Re:Rescue your "Toadstool" by Joining GayWAD!

[TheReaperD]

Preparation H, not Bengay and you're trying too hard [as well | still].

Re:Copyright

[Em Adespoton]

Doing this would limit technical development to projects that could be completed within 4 years (4 years to bring to market, 1 year to recoup costs). This doesn't really give enough time for copyright to promote the sciences and useful arts -- even in the computer software realm.

Currently, 14 years is around one generation in the computer/tech world. So copyright would give them a monopoly on the right to copy their creation for one generation, and then get out of the way for the next generation to build on top of it. This is the way US copyright was supposed to work (as opposed to UK copyright for example, which was the Crown's way of granting favors and limiting the spread of information).

The whole concept of introducing the life of the artist has always seemed like a bad idea to me -- it means that if you shorten the artist's life, there's a potential for earlier release into the public domain -- which is why to fix this, they added an extra 40 years, so there would be no immediate benefit to killing someone to release their copywritten work.

However, with corporations able to hold copyrights now, things get even trickier -- plus, we now have works made up of licensed works belonging to others. Because of life + 70, this becomes a nightmare to untangle without making a mistake, so most places just don't bother, and treat all works as if they were under perpetual copyright, and complex works as if derivatives could never be made of them, ever.

The result of THIS is abandonware, where you have people releasing source code and binaries for software where they *probably* hold the copyright, but nobody's sure as the company who held it all together no longer exists, and has possibly sold off its copyright assets, but not for sure. Because nobody's sure, nobody is likely to sue over the work being made available, and if someone eventually does, people just stop copying.

As far as game consoles needing to die/being a ripoff: if they're a ripoff, then don't buy them, and they'll die. Obviously, enough people find them to be worth purchasing to keep them going. For everyone else, there's Angry Birds.