141–150 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's go even further. Copyright was meant to be "time limited". Why is it that Nintendo still has the rights to works they released over 20 years ago even though they've already turned a profit several times over? Why do they get to sell them to people over and over again?
Because people choose to keep buying them. The seller doesn't decide how many times it gets purchased, the buyers do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's go even further. Copyright was meant to be "time limited". Why is it that Nintendo still has the rights to works they released over 20 years ago even though they've already turned a profit several times over? Why do they get to sell them to people over and over again?
Because people choose to keep buying them. The seller doesn't decide how many times it gets purchased, the buyers do.
Oddly enough, the light that Humble Bundles have shone into gaming revenue cycles has made me question our copyright system as a whole. Stay with me. In Europe during the time of Mozart, composers were incentivized to be prolific by only getting royalties off the first public performance of their works. Now that is not fair today because of course we can losslessy reproduce such things infinitely. However, Humble Bun…
I'd prefer a system, where the author has to actually and actively be trying to make money in a specific market, before the copyright can be applied in that specific case (as with trademark law, where the owner has to actively protect the trademark). Some nintendo games are currently not available anywhere (from nintendo or from original publisher), but if you copy/download that rom, you can get fined due to fictiona…
Also the games aren't 100% unavailable, they're perfectly available on their original platforms on the secondary market if you want one badly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd prefer a system, where the author has to actually and actively be trying to make money in a specific market, before the copyright can be applied in that specific case (as with trademark law, where the owner has to actively protect the trademark). Some nintendo games are currently not available anywhere (from nintendo or from original publisher), but if you copy/download that rom, you can get fined due to fictiona…
Downloading roms is certainly not illegal, sharing them is. From my experience most older Nintendo games are not available for purchase. I would gladly pay to play classic Pokémon for example games on the switch (or on Steam).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This attitude of "fearing Nintendo" strikes me as incredibly weird. Force 'em, who cares? That's competition. Love the Wii, but also it's obviously that they've had to make some terrible deals with the devil for the Switch. And this is because Steam's model is broadly superior, for the simple fact that respects both creators and users autonomy more. Nintendo can catch up to the times or Nintendo can get it's lunch ea…
This is where I think the disconnect lies. You think it is about competition and business model. You think the best product wins. You think that just because Steam's product is better, it automatically follows that they would not be subject to whims and vagaries of the court systems ( yes, systems ). Creators and users are not meaningless, but serve as mere pawns to be traded between warring corporate entities. As us…
Definitely a maybe. But I suppose I see game creators putting up a better fight than, e.g. the Tumblr adult material community, who more or less rolled over, no pun intended.
Oddly enough, the light that Humble Bundles have shone into gaming revenue cycles has made me question our copyright system as a whole. Stay with me. In Europe during the time of Mozart, composers were incentivized to be prolific by only getting royalties off the first public performance of their works. Now that is not fair today because of course we can losslessy reproduce such things infinitely. However, Humble Bun…
I'd prefer a system, where the author has to actually and actively be trying to make money in a specific market, before the copyright can be applied in that specific case (as with trademark law, where the owner has to actively protect the trademark). Some nintendo games are currently not available anywhere (from nintendo or from original publisher), but if you copy/download that rom, you can get fined due to fictiona…
That is because there are statutory damages to copyright violations. By definition, any violation causes a fixed amount of damage.
Oddly enough, the light that Humble Bundles have shone into gaming revenue cycles has made me question our copyright system as a whole. Stay with me. In Europe during the time of Mozart, composers were incentivized to be prolific by only getting royalties off the first public performance of their works. Now that is not fair today because of course we can losslessy reproduce such things infinitely. However, Humble Bun…
To the people saying "it's completely legal, what can Nintendo do" it might be worth considering that not everything is about legal / not legal. Companies and people have relationships and it's not always about if something is technically allowed, it's about how it's being understood by the other party and in this case it's pretty clear that Nintendo is not a big fan of emulators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it ruins their relationship with Nintendo.
What relationship with Nintendo? Nintendo has no games listed on Steam, and the only Valve game on any Nintendo platform is the recent Portal port.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't know the revenue Nintendo derives from virtual console sales, but you can be assured that virtually none of it is making it to the creators which is who copyright is designed to protect. I too have many gripples with copyright but this is simply wrong. Copyright is designed to protect the rightsholder . Whether it is a person or a company is irrelevant. This isn't a conspiracy or cynical-type explanation,…
I'm not an author or artist, but you only need to search for tweets about copyright on Twitter to see it benefits the rightsholders a bit too much. If the term was shorter, maybe it would be different. Of course the reason the term is longer is because of rightsholders.
I expect to live at least another 50 years. In a large amount of countries copyright is granted for the lifetime of the author and an additional 70 years.
It seems a little excessive.