3 ms·

Looks like Fair Use (tm) to me.

• onion2k 4y ago
  It doesn't really matter if it is or not. There's no way it'd ever get to court to decide whether it is or not if Nintendo choose to issue a takedown. The law is very one-sided in favor of corporations with deep pockets.
  • thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > There's no way it'd ever get to court to decide whether it is or not if Nintendo choose to issue a takedown. The law is very one-sided in favor of corporations with deep pockets. This makes no sense. The law has nothing to say about anything until whatever it is has already gotten into court.
    • autoexec 4y ago
      > The law has nothing to say about anything until whatever it is has already gotten into court. That implies that the law doesn't make it prohibitively difficult or expensive for someone to go to court and effectively defend their actions against a company with trillions of dollars in assets. We know for example that the law makes it possible for a very wealthy party to drag out or complicate proceedings with the goal of making it prohibitively expensive for a party with less resources to continue. I'd say that counts as the law having something to say before a courtroom (or a verdict) is reached