4 ms·

I understand your advocacy, but their art loses it's charm when I think of the nastiness that their lawyers are wreaking. It's not like they are in a survival o

I understand your advocacy, but their art loses it's charm when I think of the nastiness that their lawyers are wreaking. It's not like they are in a survival or scarcity environment. They are a large, multinational, multibillion dollar company. And they are loosing their million dollar lawyers on some guy for possibly damaging an incredibly small portion of their income. It's just so dirty; the more I think about it, the less happy I am playing their games. So I'd say the forest is already tarnished and dying in my eyes, unfortunately.

zapzupnz 8y ago
> on some guy for possibly damaging an incredibly small portion of their income No, they're maintaining the precedent that piggy-backing off the fruits of their labour without consent is unacceptable. When they go easy on one thing, that gives carte blanche to the next. It's not dirty, it's business. > but their art loses it's charm when I think of the nastiness that their lawyers are wreaking > the more I think about it, the less happy I am playing their games The issue is with the copyright game, not the players who see no alternative but to play it. They have shareholders' investments to protect and must be seen to take action. All I can say is that Nintendo's lawyers have been doing things like this since the NES, and if Nintendo's art wasn't tarnished in your eyes back then, then this really does sound like a knee-jerk reaction.
- craftinator 8y ago
  Piggybacking? I didn't realize he was selling anything. Profiting from their work is definitely not okay! And I've only ever read about them attacking people who were actively profiting, which doesn't bother me at all. I don't follow game industry news often, so there's nothing knee jerk about this.
- naikrovek 8y ago
  > When they go easy on one thing, that gives carte blanche to the next. That's not how copyright works. They can let anything they want slide, and still sue the next one into nothingness. You may be thinking of a trademark, which requires constant defense to maintain.

zapzupnz 8y ago

> on some guy for possibly damaging an incredibly small portion of their income No, they're maintaining the precedent that piggy-backing off the fruits of their labour without consent is unacceptable. When they go easy on one thing, that gives carte blanche to the next. It's not dirty, it's business. > but their art loses it's charm when I think of the nastiness that their lawyers are wreaking > the more I think about it, the less happy I am playing their games The issue is with the copyright game, not the players who see no alternative but to play it. They have shareholders' investments to protect and must be seen to take action. All I can say is that Nintendo's lawyers have been doing things like this since the NES, and if Nintendo's art wasn't tarnished in your eyes back then, then this really does sound like a knee-jerk reaction.

craftinator 8y ago
Piggybacking? I didn't realize he was selling anything. Profiting from their work is definitely not okay! And I've only ever read about them attacking people who were actively profiting, which doesn't bother me at all. I don't follow game industry news often, so there's nothing knee jerk about this.
naikrovek 8y ago
> When they go easy on one thing, that gives carte blanche to the next. That's not how copyright works. They can let anything they want slide, and still sue the next one into nothingness. You may be thinking of a trademark, which requires constant defense to maintain.