5 ms·

I fail to see how this takedown benefits Nintendo. How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything ?

by Ace17 7y ago

stingraycharles 7y ago
It's probably related to trademarks: you lose a trademark if you don't enforce it. If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark, which would hurt them.
- qaucnnnsicuwbr 7y ago
  I'm no copyright lawyer but couldn't they have issued a licence to use the trademark to the author if this was the case? They could have supported this as a homage to the franchise, supported their fans creativity, and gotten lots of free publicity to boot.
  - andai 7y ago
    Here we see not the absence of a way, but of a will.
- estomagordo 7y ago
  That does not explain why less draconic companies still get to keep their trademarks.
- glenndebacker 7y ago
  I hear that a lot but it's certainly not that black and white. * Capcom for example allows fan games as long as you don't profit off them. There are a couple of Megaman games for example. * Konami allowed the fan game "Castlevania: The Lecarde Chronicles 2" as long as they did not profit from the game. * Valve allowed the HL fan game Prospect - https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/ And there are other examples out there. Nintendo could perfectly allow it under certain conditions. Did Sega not work for Sonic Mania with somebody who made sonic fan games for example?
- jMyles 7y ago
  > If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark You can't be serious. Are you saying that, sitting on a civil jury hearing a lawsuit at some future date, you'd conclude that Mario - one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world - is no longer a trademark of Nintendo because a third party made a C64 clone of the game? I don't understand how you view this as the likely outcome. Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever. > Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
  - carlosperate 7y ago
    > Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever. Famous last words...
    - jMyles 7y ago
      But seriously for a second: can you describe how you actually envision this (or anything vaguely like this) ending in a civil verdict concluding abandonment of this (very well known) trademark? Like, walk me through step-by-step how Mario becomes Escalator.
      - will_brown 7y ago
        Fitbit was sued by Fitbug and while likely would have had a strong claim of infringement the court found Fitbug lost its rights to enforce the mark against Fitbit because the delay in eneforcement. Similarly Eat Right Foods lost a similar case for their mark “Eat Right” to Whole Foods for their delay in enforcing the mark. The mark holder doesn’t have to take action in every infringement as you say, of course...but if it can be proven the mark holder knew or should have known that’s kind of the threshold legal issue.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  It's not true. If it were then any company could easily give a no-cost license, take-down is in no way a requirement.
babuskov 7y ago
As far as I know, the current Nintendo Switch Online subscription that is bringing Nintendo money right now has a port of that old NES game as one of the games you get to play for free as long as you keep paying the subscription. Nintendo can easily argue that having a freely available port you can play lowers the value of their Online subscription service.
- qaucnnnsicuwbr 7y ago
  But is a port running on the Commodore _really_ competing? It's only playable by a small slice of players. If anything, it shows fans are pasionate about the franchise and it's generated a lot of buzz around it in the last few days.
- darklajid 7y ago
  How many (working!) C64 are in circulation though? A random lawyer might not consider that, but if anyone thought this through? I don't think there's any measurable impact on any Nintendo business, at all. Maybe, _maybe_ the inverse: Support a fan project like this and the middle-aged C64 fan base - even those not owning one anymore - might be even more inclined to buy Nintendo products?
  - classichasclass 7y ago
    A better analysis might also be to consider emulators as well. Since virtually any desktop system of any recent vintage can run a C64 emulator capable of running this game, the actual number of "compatible systems" may be much higher. This is more to say that a defense of the authors of this port may not want to make such an argument.
    - hopler 7y ago
      Emulators have been SMB compatible for decades. A C64 Port adds nothing in that area.
      - kakwa_ 7y ago
wodenokoto 7y ago
They are selling their old NES games still, both through Nintendo Switch Online subscriptions and what ever is left in stock of the NES Classic. This is not some sort of abondonware.
- jMyles 7y ago
  So, just to complete your thought here: the way that you are answering the question "How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything?" is to suggest that people are going to buy a C64 to play Super Mario Bros instead of a Switch? That's what you're saying?
  - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
    That is one argument that is often made, however the real issue is that if Nintendo doesn't do this takedown, does not protect its intellectual property, they may lose it entirely - to retain a copyright you have to actively defend it.
    - jMyles 7y ago
      Please. What's the actual scenario you are envisioning here? Do you really, honestly believe that a jury is going to conclude that Nintendo is no longer the rightful owner of a trademark on Mario? Because they didn't take legal action against a C64 port? And what copyright are you talking about anyway? I thought this was a discussion about the Mario trademark? This "you have to defend your IP" nonsense very quickly veers into propaganda in my estimation. Stated better here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... There is no realistic timeline in which the outcome you are suggesting comes to pass.
    - classichasclass 7y ago
      I think you're thinking of trademark defense, not copyright.
hobbe80 7y ago
It won’t, of course. But Nintendo has chosen to defend their trademarks always - which is a simple solution, doesn’t require anyone to make a decision “should we allow this or not”. This case might’ve been an easy call to allow, but by always doing this, for all cases, they don’t need internal discussions on more grey area instances.

I fail to see how this takedown benefits Nintendo. How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything ?

by Ace17 7y ago

I fail to see how this takedown benefits Nintendo. How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything ?

stingraycharles 7y ago

It's probably related to trademarks: you lose a trademark if you don't enforce it. If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark, which would hurt them.

qaucnnnsicuwbr 7y ago
I'm no copyright lawyer but couldn't they have issued a licence to use the trademark to the author if this was the case? They could have supported this as a homage to the franchise, supported their fans creativity, and gotten lots of free publicity to boot.
- andai 7y ago
  Here we see not the absence of a way, but of a will.
estomagordo 7y ago
That does not explain why less draconic companies still get to keep their trademarks.
glenndebacker 7y ago
I hear that a lot but it's certainly not that black and white. * Capcom for example allows fan games as long as you don't profit off them. There are a couple of Megaman games for example. * Konami allowed the fan game "Castlevania: The Lecarde Chronicles 2" as long as they did not profit from the game. * Valve allowed the HL fan game Prospect - https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/ And there are other examples out there. Nintendo could perfectly allow it under certain conditions. Did Sega not work for Sonic Mania with somebody who made sonic fan games for example?
jMyles 7y ago
> If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark You can't be serious. Are you saying that, sitting on a civil jury hearing a lawsuit at some future date, you'd conclude that Mario - one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world - is no longer a trademark of Nintendo because a third party made a C64 clone of the game? I don't understand how you view this as the likely outcome. Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever. > Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- carlosperate 7y ago
  > Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever. Famous last words...
  - jMyles 7y ago
    But seriously for a second: can you describe how you actually envision this (or anything vaguely like this) ending in a civil verdict concluding abandonment of this (very well known) trademark? Like, walk me through step-by-step how Mario becomes Escalator.
    - will_brown 7y ago
      Fitbit was sued by Fitbug and while likely would have had a strong claim of infringement the court found Fitbug lost its rights to enforce the mark against Fitbit because the delay in eneforcement. Similarly Eat Right Foods lost a similar case for their mark “Eat Right” to Whole Foods for their delay in enforcing the mark. The mark holder doesn’t have to take action in every infringement as you say, of course...but if it can be proven the mark holder knew or should have known that’s kind of the threshold legal issue.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
It's not true. If it were then any company could easily give a no-cost license, take-down is in no way a requirement.

babuskov 7y ago

As far as I know, the current Nintendo Switch Online subscription that is bringing Nintendo money right now has a port of that old NES game as one of the games you get to play for free as long as you keep paying the subscription. Nintendo can easily argue that having a freely available port you can play lowers the value of their Online subscription service.

qaucnnnsicuwbr 7y ago
But is a port running on the Commodore _really_ competing? It's only playable by a small slice of players. If anything, it shows fans are pasionate about the franchise and it's generated a lot of buzz around it in the last few days.
darklajid 7y ago
How many (working!) C64 are in circulation though? A random lawyer might not consider that, but if anyone thought this through? I don't think there's any measurable impact on any Nintendo business, at all. Maybe, _maybe_ the inverse: Support a fan project like this and the middle-aged C64 fan base - even those not owning one anymore - might be even more inclined to buy Nintendo products?
- classichasclass 7y ago
  A better analysis might also be to consider emulators as well. Since virtually any desktop system of any recent vintage can run a C64 emulator capable of running this game, the actual number of "compatible systems" may be much higher. This is more to say that a defense of the authors of this port may not want to make such an argument.
  - hopler 7y ago
    Emulators have been SMB compatible for decades. A C64 Port adds nothing in that area.
    - kakwa_ 7y ago

wodenokoto 7y ago

They are selling their old NES games still, both through Nintendo Switch Online subscriptions and what ever is left in stock of the NES Classic. This is not some sort of abondonware.

jMyles 7y ago
So, just to complete your thought here: the way that you are answering the question "How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything?" is to suggest that people are going to buy a C64 to play Super Mario Bros instead of a Switch? That's what you're saying?
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  That is one argument that is often made, however the real issue is that if Nintendo doesn't do this takedown, does not protect its intellectual property, they may lose it entirely - to retain a copyright you have to actively defend it.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Please. What's the actual scenario you are envisioning here? Do you really, honestly believe that a jury is going to conclude that Nintendo is no longer the rightful owner of a trademark on Mario? Because they didn't take legal action against a C64 port? And what copyright are you talking about anyway? I thought this was a discussion about the Mario trademark? This "you have to defend your IP" nonsense very quickly veers into propaganda in my estimation. Stated better here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not... There is no realistic timeline in which the outcome you are suggesting comes to pass.
  - classichasclass 7y ago
    I think you're thinking of trademark defense, not copyright.

hobbe80 7y ago

It won’t, of course. But Nintendo has chosen to defend their trademarks always - which is a simple solution, doesn’t require anyone to make a decision “should we allow this or not”. This case might’ve been an easy call to allow, but by always doing this, for all cases, they don’t need internal discussions on more grey area instances.