4 ms·

> Who's actually being hurt here? No one is buying 20 year old consoles and games that probably aren't even sold by the original company anymore. People are bu

• crtasm 1y ago
  Access to NES, SNES and N64 games is a perk of Nintendo's paid online subscription so pirate copies do compete with that to some extent.
  • mvieira38 1y ago
    Not the entire library, though. Games that aren't offered in any form anywhere, and also games that weren't localized (like Mother 3) shouldn't have copyright enforceable. It's either you give up production of the game or you produce it forever, no other sane way to go about it
    • brookst 1y ago
      I hate overzealous copyright prosecution as much as anyone, but I’m very wary of a model where you have to use something you own to maintain ownership. There are things that work that way (RF spectrum), but in general I think it would cut against the purpose of copyright. I do think there’s value in giving creators exclusive rights to their own work, and making it contingent on distribution would hurt small companies more than big.
      • _aavaa_ 1y ago
        The only thing you own is the right to a time-limited monopoly of commercialization.
• izacus 1y ago
  Nintendo can sell them only because we grant them mo monopoly rights to do so. It's been more than 30 years since the games creation, let's revoke them now.
  • bmacho 1y ago
    I mean, yes, but it is how IP works. You can either grant IP for everyone equally, or point at some companies that they are rich and consumer hostile anyway so they don't get no IP, or abolish IP altogether. What Nintendo is doing is no different than what everyone is doing, except that you hate them.
    • gpm 1y ago
      The person you are responding to is pretty clearly of the opinion that "30 years is too long a term for copyright" not "they just hate Nintendo".
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • const_cast 1y ago
        IMO the problem isn't that copyright lasts too long, although that matters too, but rather that you don't need to provide copyrighted material. So basically Nintendo, and others, just hold their copyright material hostage to artificially inflate it's value. The scarcity around Nintendo games is intentional and purely artificial. This shouldn't be allowed. If you want to maintain copyright on old ass shit, then fine, but you actually have to still sell that old ass shit. Otherwise what are you claiming copyright on? A product that doesn't exist? Why would you do that? Only for nefarious reasons.
        • rpdillon 1y ago
          This is actually a problem that spans far beyond the vault-like behavior that HBO and Nintendo have been exhibiting. There's this notion of something called the copyright cliff where works that are quite old but remain under copyright are almost completely unavailable. And in the cases of books, this is not due to artificial scarcity at all, but rather that it's not economically viable to try to extract value from them. And so they just remain unpublished. Yet to get an unauthorized copy is still copyright infringement. It's good example of how copyright doesn't work very well in achieving its stated purpose.
• suddenlybananas 1y ago
  >They are just manufacturing a scarcity right now, or at least they are trying Rent-seeking is not really something that governments should encourage.
  • immibis 1y ago
    Rent-seeking brings lots of money to lots of politicians, so they encourage it. Those same politicians also have the power to legally murder people, or lock them up for life. "Should" is irrelevant - focus on the "is".
    • suddenlybananas 1y ago
      Deciding on how society should run is a matter of should, unless you're a sociopath who doesn't care about improving the world.
• komali2 1y ago
  If you can show me where I can buy a gameboy formfactor method to play SNES games sold by Nintendo, I will buy two right now and mail you one. The chinese are selling things that nintendo isn't, that people want. Beautiful capitalism.