3 ms·

One thing that really rubs me the wrong way: aggressively stomping out ROM distribution (for entire distributors, not just for their own properties) while packa

by mahoho 6y ago

One thing that really rubs me the wrong way: aggressively stomping out ROM distribution (for entire distributors, not just for their own properties) while packaging the same technology in their e-shops or in boutique toys like the SNES Classic, new Game & Watch, etc. This portends a future where we get to play the same few dozen sanctioned "classics" on a continually updating hardware/software treadmill, while countless more games are lost to time and aging hardware. What happens to masterpieces like Terranigma? I know it's a difficult position to argue for practically, but I think piracy is vital to ensure the longevity of all forms of commercial art like video games, TV shows, and music. Luckily I think pirates will always find a way to keep content alive, but if every company were as aggressive as Nintendo then I would start to worry.

Nomokis 6y ago
> I know it's a difficult position to argue for practically I'm not sure it is. It's a completely novel state of affairs that companies expect to have perpetual ownership and absolute control/monopoly over what they've created. It's completely unjustified outside of "well, we have the money to make it so" and the public domain is dead solely because of efforts of companies like Disney.
sellyme 6y ago
> I know it's a difficult position to argue for practically, but I think piracy is vital to ensure the longevity of all forms of commercial art like video games, TV shows, and music. Not at all a difficult position to argue for. This practice is called a library, and it's a very popular concept. We've got three options to preserve human culture: - extremely harsh copyright limits (single digit number of years, so it's still in the public conscious and can actually be found again after copyright expires) - copyright only applying for the duration that said content is widely available (no suing someone for publishing content you don't even sell) - refusing to abide by copyright laws (community sourced archives) I'd be happy to go with either of the first two options, but media conglomerates aren't, so piracy it is.

by mahoho 6y ago

Nomokis 6y ago

> I know it's a difficult position to argue for practically I'm not sure it is. It's a completely novel state of affairs that companies expect to have perpetual ownership and absolute control/monopoly over what they've created. It's completely unjustified outside of "well, we have the money to make it so" and the public domain is dead solely because of efforts of companies like Disney.

sellyme 6y ago

> I know it's a difficult position to argue for practically, but I think piracy is vital to ensure the longevity of all forms of commercial art like video games, TV shows, and music. Not at all a difficult position to argue for. This practice is called a library, and it's a very popular concept. We've got three options to preserve human culture: - extremely harsh copyright limits (single digit number of years, so it's still in the public conscious and can actually be found again after copyright expires) - copyright only applying for the duration that said content is widely available (no suing someone for publishing content you don't even sell) - refusing to abide by copyright laws (community sourced archives) I'd be happy to go with either of the first two options, but media conglomerates aren't, so piracy it is.