Nintendo drags two ROM sites to court over "brazen and mass-scale infringement of Nintendo’s intellectual property"

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, Yoinkerman said:

The same roms they pirated for the classic systems?

This ended up being false information.

[mynameisjuan]

A lot of these games are not going to be re-released. Right now they are not losing sales because of it and even with people pirating old games, if they re-release it sales will still be high. I think you underestimate nintendo fans and ports and re-mastered. 

 

They are not losing money on old games that have not been re-released. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Let's clear up something.

 

In the US, copyright remains valid for the life of the author + 70 years after their death. If the work was anonymous, then it's 95 from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is sooner, unless the author becomes known, then the previous rule applies. This means that the copyright, and thus the right to distribute the work, for NES games is valid until at least the 2050s, regardless if Nintendo or whoever published it originally defends it or not. Which means it's illegal to distribute ROMs until that time period.

 

Now the thing you lose if you don't defend it are trademarks.

Edited July 24, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[mynameisjuan]

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

copyright remains valid for the life of the author + 70 years after their death

Which is bullshit. 10-15 years should be max.

 

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

f the work was anonymous, then it's 95 from publication or 120 years from creation

How can someone have an anonymous copyright? And for up to 120 years? WTF

[ItsMitch]

9 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Which is bullshit. 10-15 years should be max.

 

How can someone have an anonymous copyright? And for up to 120 years? WTF

Blame the US Government who set it up.

Also the max for Copyright is MAINLY 25 years.

S: US Copyright Office

 

Quote

 

The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection.

 

 

[GoodBytes]

14 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Which is bullshit. 10-15 years should be max.

 

How can someone have an anonymous copyright? And for up to 120 years? WTF

This was heavily lobbied by the Music industry, mostly (Movie and many other industries supported it), if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on that.

[Mira Yurizaki]

31 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Blame the US Government who set it up.

Also the max for Copyright is MAINLY 25 years.

S: US Copyright Office

That's not a maximum. That's a minimum.

42 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Which is bullshit. 10-15 years should be max.

 

How can someone have an anonymous copyright? And for up to 120 years? WTF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths Most countries have life + 50.

 

A work can be considered anonymous if the original author can't be found. If you write under a pseudonym it's effectively anonymous. The whole system is setup so unless you explicitly state it's in the public domain, it's not.

[Mooshi]

Be nice if Ninty actually used their lolsuit cash to invest in their hardware. Sure do love my washed out TN panels on my new 3DS XL because I lost the IPS lottery.

 

Funny if consumers were to sue them for quality control for the new stuff they actually make money on.

[GoodBytes]

47 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Be nice if Ninty actually used their lolsuit cash to invest in their hardware. Sure do love my washed out TN panels on my new 3DS XL because I lost the IPS lottery.

 

Funny if consumers were to sue them for quality control for the new stuff they actually make money on.

Actually the device was supposed to have a TN panel. They probably got IPS panels on some to meet demand. They probably took a hit in profit as a result (which then affects their financial reports, and sadly investors and shareholders needs to be pleased.. a business, beside co-op (and even then) is not a charity).  Anyway, my point is that it isn't the reverse. They are chances that that the IPS model of the 3DS got little profit as a result, is all am I saying, so to keep profitability to the same amount following their business case to the closest, they can't stick to IPS panels on all models.

 

Car manufacture does big meetings if a part of a car they product increase by 30 cents (well, the 30 cent is not a set amount, that is just an example). Just to say how companies work, if you want to look it up.

[TigerHawk]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

If the developers sees that there is a market, then they will re-release the game. If it was your IP, you would do the same.

The rom sites with these older games are clearly popular enough for Nintendo to sue them and have them closed down.

No market?

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, TigerHawk said:

The rom sites with these older games are clearly popular enough for Nintendo to sue them and have them closed down.

No market?

This isn't Nintendo suing the website for distributing ROMs period. It's for distributing ROMs of titles they own. And a lot of those titles that these websites are distributing have been re-released.

 

It's just that the damages you can claim are so high that you only need a few ROMs to tank the site.

[TetraSky]

How can there be "damages" to their revenue... When they were not selling the majority of these games in the first place?

While some games were released on the virtual console (which isn't even on the Switch.. but may come with the paid subscription), not all of them were.

As much as I love Nintendo, all they are doing is making it harder for their fans to play older, unsupported games.

 

Even if we were to consider all of the games they've released on Virtual Console so far, it's a far cry from all the games they've published before on their older system.

 

While the ROM sites are certainly at fault here, I wonder if they had just removed the ability to download games that had been released on VC, if Nintendo would've still sued them.

[TigerHawk]

20 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

This isn't Nintendo suing the website for distributing ROMs period. It's for distributing ROMs of titles they own. And a lot of those titles that these websites are distributing have been re-released.

 

It's just that the damages you can claim are so high that you only need a few ROMs to tank the site.

Why don't Nintendo just make their own rom site then, with their own emulator. 5 bucks for the emulator, 99 cents a game. Most people would do it legitimately then for so cheap, and some money is better than no money. 

They don't even have to spend money developing the emulator themselves. There are a dozen to choose from. License that from the developer, or just buy the rights outright if possible, fluff it up with your own branding and crap. The roms have been available online for like 20 years already they don't have to go get them themselves either.

Nintendo is a pretty weird company, honestly. Its pretty clear that NoA and NoE are just puppets for NoJ's sensibilities and marketing. I doubt they get much of a say at all in anything.

 

Next thing you know Nintendo will be going after the LTTP randomizer people.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, TigerHawk said:

Why don't Nintendo just make their own rom site then, with their own emulator. 5 bucks for the emulator, 99 cents a game. Most people would do it legitimately then for so cheap, and some money is better than no money. 

They do, it's called the Virtual Console.

[TigerHawk]

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

They do, it's called the Virtual Console.

Just make it for PC, though. Then they could merchandise a whole line of Nintendo accessories for PC. 

I know I am being completely unrealistic here. I'm sure it is much more complicated than I am making it out to be.

Honestly I'm just bored at work.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

This was heavily lobbied by the Music industry, mostly (Movie and many other industries supported it), if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on that.

No, it was Disney.

 

I've seen a video about that and the increas in lenth of copyright in the US correlates with the birth of Mickey Mouse. Because if the Laws hadn't been changed, Mickey Mouse would have been Public Domain ages ago. And that would have been a problem for them.

[PocketNerd]

4 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

That's because, legally, Nintendo's almost definitely in the right with all of their asinine and draconian business practices - the problem is that ethically (by many people's standards) and in the court of public opinion, Nintendo is completely in the wrong here and in several other places. Unfortunately, Nintendo will continue to fuck over its consumers and fans so long as they keeping making money. Even if their profit starts to take a downward trend because of the way they treat their players like criminals, I'd wager that Nintendo is more likely to just fuck over everyone even more rather than actually change their polices for the better, though I'd love to be proven wrong here. Just because Nintendo is legally allowed to do what they're doing, doesn't mean what they're doing should be considered reasonable or acceptable.

 

Side note: the amount Nintendo is suing these sites for is completely ridiculous and unreasonable - even if these old games were easy to purchase and play (they aren't), there's no way in hell Nintendo would be losing anywhere near the amount of money they're suing for.

Yeah, Nintendo isn't really the bad guy in all of this. They (and many Publishers/Developers) have no choice but to defend their IP(s) unless they want to lose them (Megaman is actually at risk if Capcom doesn't shut-down that MegaMan Maker game).

The REAL issue are the laws that force companies to keep fighting to protect their IP despite having the copyright/trademark for it.

That said, I do wish Nintendo catches up to Xbox and Playstation and realizes they NEED to have Virtual Console.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Yeah, Nintendo isn't really the bad guy in all of this. They (and many Publishers/Developers) have no choice but to defend their IP(s) unless they want to lose them (Megaman is actually at risk if Capcom doesn't shut-down that MegaMan Maker game).

Companies don't have to actively defend their copyrights to keep it. The copyright is theirs for as long as the copyright term.

 

It's trademarks that you have to defend to keep. And even then, it's to prevent it from becoming generecized.

[DeScruff]

Anyone remember how the NES classic had ROMs with headers that obviously showed that Nintendo downloaded the roms from a site like this?

 

Imagine if these were the sites Nintendo did get the files from.

[NameWasUsed]

I juuuust finished downloading, ahem, backing up my ENTIRE previously purchased collection.

Sue me Nontunda

[NameWasUsed]

44 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Anyone remember how the NES classic had ROMs with headers that obviously showed that Nintendo downloaded the roms from a site like this?

 

Imagine if these were the sites Nintendo did get the files from.

1:Release Classic NES.
2:Whistle blow.

3: Own it ALL

[suicidalfranco]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

This was heavily lobbied by the Music industry, mostly (Movie and many other industries supported it), if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on that.

more like Disney on Mickey, and they're ready to extend it further now that it's reaching the end, again.

 

OT: kay N, then make all of the games on those sites available to every console you're selling. Not just a bunch, not just the top hitters, all of them. Till then, i'll enjoying them on my rPi and phone, and Vita, and 3DS and PC the only viable way to do it in 2018: emulators and "illegal" ROMs

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

OT: kay N, then make all of the games on those sites available to every console you're selling. Not just a bunch, not just the top hitters, all of them. Till then, i'll enjoying them on my rPi and phone, and Vita, and 3DS and PC the only viable way to do it in 2018: emulators and "illegal" ROMs

They're not suing because they're hosting ROMs period, but that they're hosting ROMs from games that they own the IP for. Assuming that $150,000 USD per infringement is upheld, even having 10 ROMs would likely be enough to break most amateur sites like this.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

They're not suing because they're hosting ROMs period, but that they're hosting ROMs from games that they own the IP for. Assuming that $150,000 USD per infringement is upheld, even having 10 ROMs would likely be enough to break most amateur sites like this.

and even then, N doesn't provide access all of their personal IPs, only a bunch, and in that bunch just their top sellers from back then.

let's just compare the numbers for the SNES: 30 on virtual console, 3484 on a popular rom site i can not name.

 

So when is N going to give us the legal way to play the other 3454 titles?

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

and even then, N doesn't provide access all of their personal IPs, only a bunch, and in that bunch just their top sellers from back then.

let's just compare the numbers for the SNES: 30 on virtual console, 3484 on a popular rom site i can not name.

 

So when is N going to give us the legal way to play the other 3454 titles?

When did Nintendo own the IP to 3000+ titles across their systems?