3 ms·

So don't live with the freedom you have by right, and just live with artificial extra legal boundaries set up by a paranoid cooperation.

noirscape 4y ago
You basically have no rights under modern copyright law. Derivative content is extremely restricted and pretty much arbitrarily controlled by the copyright owner. This is by design. If you want to change that, don't complain to Nintendo, complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with. Nintendo has the rights at the moment, while you, the consumer, don't.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  > complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with Ah yes. That should do the trick.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  > complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with. I complain with my voice and vote but BigCorps will complain with their dollars, which will buy more than just a handful of votes. It's not exactly correct to say dollars = votes, but it's about as close to correct as saying we live in a democracy.
alrlroipsp 4y ago
> the freedom you have by right That's not how law works.
- danlugo92 4y ago
  If that's not how law works I want off the ship.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
You don't have the freedom or right to make money off of other people's stuff.
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  So could Ford stop me from using footage of a Mustang? Vehicle design and logos are copyrighted. What about a movie wear characters are wearing designer clothing? Those are covered by copyright as well. Copyright does have limits.
  - wolrah 4y ago
    > So could Ford stop me from using footage of a Mustang? Vehicle design and logos are copyrighted. What about a movie wear characters are wearing designer clothing? Those are covered by copyright as well. You may notice how when cars are used in commercials they generally have their logos removed. Likewise when someone wears a shirt with a designer logo or graphic design on TV it'll often be blurred. The line is fuzzy but at least the professional media production world seems to have agreed it's somewhere around there.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      This is a somewhat disingenuous statement. If you go back in time you will notice that was not the case, Then Studios got the bright idea of "product placement" so if a brand wanted to be in a show they need to pay for it, if not they would remove the logos. In some limited circumstances a company might be able to sue over the use copyright in another work but for the most part fair use would protect them. The reason they remove the logos today is primarily to extort money from brands not fear over copyright
      - Verdex 4y ago
        There is actually some case law about this. The car Elenore from gone in 60 seconds has its rights held by some organization that was going around suing people. Some US district court ruled that cars could not be copyrighted (although this did reverse a previous decision). I think the major distinction is that the car isn't actually a character in the film (and the previous decision was because the rights holders disingenuously indicated that the car was a character in the movie and the court didn't double check that this was in fact the case iirc).

noirscape 4y ago

You basically have no rights under modern copyright law. Derivative content is extremely restricted and pretty much arbitrarily controlled by the copyright owner. This is by design. If you want to change that, don't complain to Nintendo, complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with. Nintendo has the rights at the moment, while you, the consumer, don't.

LadyCailin 4y ago
> complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with Ah yes. That should do the trick.
bcrosby95 4y ago
> complain to your representatives who made the system that way to begin with. I complain with my voice and vote but BigCorps will complain with their dollars, which will buy more than just a handful of votes. It's not exactly correct to say dollars = votes, but it's about as close to correct as saying we live in a democracy.

alrlroipsp 4y ago

> the freedom you have by right That's not how law works.

danlugo92 4y ago
If that's not how law works I want off the ship.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

You don't have the freedom or right to make money off of other people's stuff.

Pet_Ant 4y ago
So could Ford stop me from using footage of a Mustang? Vehicle design and logos are copyrighted. What about a movie wear characters are wearing designer clothing? Those are covered by copyright as well. Copyright does have limits.
- wolrah 4y ago
  > So could Ford stop me from using footage of a Mustang? Vehicle design and logos are copyrighted. What about a movie wear characters are wearing designer clothing? Those are covered by copyright as well. You may notice how when cars are used in commercials they generally have their logos removed. Likewise when someone wears a shirt with a designer logo or graphic design on TV it'll often be blurred. The line is fuzzy but at least the professional media production world seems to have agreed it's somewhere around there.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    This is a somewhat disingenuous statement. If you go back in time you will notice that was not the case, Then Studios got the bright idea of "product placement" so if a brand wanted to be in a show they need to pay for it, if not they would remove the logos. In some limited circumstances a company might be able to sue over the use copyright in another work but for the most part fair use would protect them. The reason they remove the logos today is primarily to extort money from brands not fear over copyright
    - Verdex 4y ago
      There is actually some case law about this. The car Elenore from gone in 60 seconds has its rights held by some organization that was going around suing people. Some US district court ruled that cars could not be copyrighted (although this did reverse a previous decision). I think the major distinction is that the car isn't actually a character in the film (and the previous decision was because the rights holders disingenuously indicated that the car was a character in the movie and the court didn't double check that this was in fact the case iirc).