|
I am a professional programmer, I understand your point and agree with you, I'd be very annoyed but the situation is different, the game is old and they've got a potential way of boosting their reputation or even making money from the game.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer)
www.simonshugar.co.uk
"If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Lee Shugar wrote: the game is old and they've got a potential way of boosting their reputation or even making money from the game.
they are still making money from it. they do ports and re-releases of it for every platform they create.
|
|
|
|
|
How much are they still making with it? And where do they port it to? PC? XBox? PS? yeah. sure let everyone that doesn't own or want to own an "Nintendo <xyz>" for a few hours of nostalagia buy the device so we beat that dead horse a bit more...
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: How much are they still making with it?
beats me. why does it matter?
is there something in copyright law that says you have to make money or you lose your rights ? nope.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said that they lost their right. I'm perfectly fine with them having it copyrighted, so that nobody can make his own games and gain money with it.
However in what way does a free html5 version of it by a fan hurt their purse so much that they file a copyright complaint? What good does it do to them? It only makes them seen as ridiculous.
The same with those youtube videos. What do you think: If you watch a video about a game, do you buy it because you got some impression or do you replace the experience of playing it yourself with watching a video about it? I'd say those who watch the video and don't buy & play it themselves wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: in what way does a free html5 version of it
the amount of money exchanged is irrelevant.
it's Nintendo's game. by law, they are the only people who can put new versions of it into the world. sure, they might have handled this situation in a nicer way, but they have no legal obligation to do so.
Nicholas Marty wrote: If you watch a video about a game
this wasn't a video about a game. it was the entire game, and (i believe) fully functional.
the analogue isn't people posting videos of games on YouTube, it's people posting entire albums on YouTube. the copyright owners are fully within their rights to shut it down, regardless of how much money is involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: it's Nintendo's game. by law, they are the only people who can put new versions of it into the world.
You repeat yourself ... I perfectly understand that they have it copyrighted, and I perfectly understand that they can shut everything down (or at least try to do so) what is using their property if they want to do so. Why the hell do you think, anyone would say that they don't have the right to do so?
The question never was if they legally can. They question is if they should. I'm just saying they should not, as they gain nothing from it other than bad promotion and people seeing them as arrogant pricks. You never stated why they should shut that game down, you're only saying that they have the right to do so (which is definitly true and nobody is argueing about that).
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: Why the hell do you think, anyone would say that they don't have the right to do so?
because that's what other people have been implying on this thread.
Nicholas Marty wrote: I'm just saying they should not, as they gain nothing from it other than bad promotion and people seeing them as arrogant pricks.
i don't see them that way, not at all. i see them as fully within their rights. i think the only arrogant prick in this situation is the kid who thought he could rip-off someone else's work without repercussions.
Nicholas Marty wrote: You never stated why they should shut that game down,
Nintendo still sells the game, so they have an incentive to stop people from ripping them off. and even if they weren't selling it, it's still their property and they get to choose how it's presented to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of me thinks, fair do they sat down (and created a short overweight Italian plumber who has a thing for mushrooms...not the point) didn't they also sue or threaten to sue the creator(s?) of Great Gina Sisters on the Amiga for ripping of Mario... they should have let it go, after-all he did not reverse engineer the code from a cartridge and I seem to remember a VBA hack that let you play Sonic The Hedgehog which was a rip from a cartridge and not getting too upset about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Trademark law gives rights holders the choice between acting like psychotic jackbooted thugs and losing their rights to someone who might use a case where they didn't do so as proof that they're not defending it. It's fubared in a way that makes copyright and patent law look sane.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be considered a "Fair use" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
i'm not a lawyer, but i doubt it. it's not a parody, it's not an academic study, it's not for his own personal use, etc.. if he had kept it small, maybe he could claim it was a demo of the technology, but he duplicated all the original levels. and he made it public, so it directly competes with Nintendo's version (even if he's not making money directly from it).
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: does Nintendo still own the rights to the game? yes.
end of story.
How much will they make from that particular game this year, next year, etc?
Zero.
How many new Mario fans could have been generated by allowing people to play the on-line game -- fans who would later pay money for up-to-date versions?
Lots.
Are Nintendo acting like dicks and shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the source of their main revenue stream?
Yes.
Now it's the end of the story.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: How much will they make from that particular game this year, next year, etc? Zero.
not true at all, since they're still releasing it for new platforms, and as part of packages. but how much they make or not it's completely irrelevant, because it's their game and they can do whatever they want to with it. that's how the law works.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a complicated matter,
On one hand you have the fact that they are not wrong on try to protect their copyright, if it was my software, I would want the same. Additionally, to pay someone that used your product without your authorization to make something which became successful is a matter of choice.
On the other hand, I believe Simon is right when he posted:Quote: Simply crushing the game will make fans of the series turn on Nintendo
There might be like 10 different way to deal with this situation which would benefit both nintendo and the guy who, by the way, made the game draw a lot of attention...
|
|
|
|
|
28 years after first release...
10 years after re-release...
The funny thing that the browser based remake has a 1985 Nintendo copyright on it...
It's true that the game belongs to Nintendo, but...
...Josh Goldberg doesn't made it for money (and I believe he didn't got any), so Nintendo's attempt to make money out of it (Nintendo's sales of Super Mario is close to zero, as you can get a used copy from $9 without paying a cent to Nintendo) is looks bad...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is (V).
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo makes some good points. To build on them, if Nintendo doesn't protect their copyright, they will lose it. Another consideration is that if the game doesn't work well, it will reflect badly on Nintendo, not on the people who wrote it. This is multiplied by magnitudes if it's related to serious problems, like becoming a malware vector.
(Do note that Nintendo has always been extremely protective of its IP and brand, so this is nothing new and is quite mild by comparison of other actions the company has taken. From what I've observed, nothing seems to make Nintendo fans turn on their master, which is both remarkable and sad.)
|
|
|
|
|
If you
[Donate]
Perhaps the fact that he is asking for donations to continue development of a game is clearly an infringement on their copy-write has something to do their actions.
If he had put it out there as a demo of "hey world, see what cool things I can do in HTML5" without the hint that he intends to be compensated for it some manner, Nintendo's response may have been "hey dude, not cool that you used our IP without permission, but perhaps you would like to work for us".
[edit] corrected typo.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: not cool that you used our IP without
What do IP laws state? After all, the language is totally different so the actual code (IP) doesn't look a single thing like the Nintendo version.
If I write a calculator program will Microsoft sue me claiming copyright issues just because it looks the same and is named Calculator? I know Mario is much more specific but how far does the copyright protect?
I can't imagine playing Mario with a keyboard is going to be better than a console so who cares? You won't lose sales over it. In fact, I'll bet sales go up. So, then should the HTML5 guy sue Nintendo for compensation for making sales go up?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No one can copyright the gameplay. Only the characters are copyrighted. Turn the Mario blue, name it John, change all the environment (with something simple as mario, but with other colors) and keep the site. The people will continue to play, the same gameplay, new characters, not copyrighted, yet.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are offered one my best advice would be to just say no.
|
|
|
|
|
Mint. Yes, fine - I like.
Chocolate. Yes, fine - It's a staple of life.
Fried potato. Yes, fine - I like.
All together? No. Just no.
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Fried potato
You must be one of the more optimistic kind of people. Potato in pringles. 
Maybe they should put a warning on the containers they sell this stuff in.
"WARNING: May contain traces of potato!" 
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
Allegedly, they are 42% potato[^] - the remainder being things you probably don't want to think about... 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats more wrong that Nagy drinking orange juice on a night out!
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
