4 ms·

They made a derivative work that added value to many people. And the law said that derivative works are generally banned, and society should be deprived of them

by Peaker 13y ago

They made a derivative work that added value to many people. And the law said that derivative works are generally banned, and society should be deprived of them. So their hard work to make Mario work for many people in the browser should be thrown away. The word "theft" is unproductive, because as this case shows, it might be more descriptive to claim that copyright is theft, as society was deprived of value for no good reason at all. Nintendo won't make more and better games because this website does not exist. People won't enjoy a single nice thing. Copyright stole this value from everyone.

Silhouette 13y ago
You make a fair argument for changing copyright law to better reflect today's reality without undermining the motivation for having the law in the first place. I don't think someone has much right to complain if they blatantly violate the law as it stands today and then get minimally called on it, though.
- rwmj 13y ago
  So he's going to change the law to make copyright terms reasonable? No. He should persist in civil disobedience (and of course be prepared to take the consequences).
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    And face a $150,000 claim for statutory damages for the wilful infringement? It's easy for a general to consider the optimal strategy for storming a fortified position. He's not going to be the cannon fodder who gets sent in first with little chance of survival.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Hell, its not just Copyright law. Trademark law says that you're not allowed to use another company's Brand. Without proper Trademark law, it is impossible to build up a "trustful" relationship between a company and its customers. You are NOT allowed to copy another person's brand that they have spent many years and much money developing. Its just not fair.
  - throwaway98604 13y ago
    > Without proper Trademark law, it is impossible to build up a "trustful" relationship between a company and its customers. I disagree. This can still be achieved with the right (non legal) infrastructure to protect your brand i.e. an official Twitter account or domain name that can be used to identify the "legitimate" products from a company. It would be a much better tradeoff to the current cannibalistic nature of our current trademark laws that cripple the development of truly wonderful games like Pokemon Generations [1] while they milk the brand to death by regurgitating the same game with new Pokemon year after year. [1] http://www.indiedb.com/games/pokemon-generations/news/change-of-pace-updates-rescheduled http://www.indiedb.com/games/pokemon-generations/news/change...
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html Trademark law protects you from domain camping and false identities.
      - throwaway98604 13y ago
        Isn't Trademark a form of domain camping, too?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Domain Camping is when you look at another person's brand and say "I like their brand, lemme pretend to be them". For example, "camping" the site "microSSoft.com" would be domain camping. Trademark law requires you to provably build a brand from the ground up. Hire your own artists, hire your own creativity. Are you honestly telling me that you are so uncreative that you can't create your own brand? Don't recreate "Mario", create your own damn characters! And that is how the world gets better: when you reward creativity. It is virtually impossible to recreate a character, a brand, or anything and actually violate trademark law if you actually built a brand from scratch.
etler 13y ago
Nintendo still sells the original mario bros. game through multiple avenues. This site existing absolutely takes away from Nintendo's profits off the game in a real sense.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  I disagree, Nintendo has never distributed a PC- or browser-based version of this game. Also, it's debatable whether or not profiting from a thirty-year-old game is adding social value. Nintendo seems to fashion themselves after Disney, in the sense that they place extreme value for themselves on copyright protectionism.
  - camus2 13y ago
    > it's debatable whether or not profiting from a thirty-year-old game is adding social value the law says it is not,case closed.
    - throwaway98604 13y ago
      The law is not the end-all-be-all for moral debate, and he raises a reasonable point.
  - cpayne 13y ago
    They haven't but they might license someone else to do it.
    - Peaker 13y ago
      Creating derivative works is the most productive avenue for creativity. By requiring a license for it, it is virtually banned. Society loses out on a huge body of derivative works. Note, virtually all works are derivative works, except that now, we're only allowed to derive from stuff created at an arbitrary point when copyrights became perpetual. If this mario game was allowed to benefit the many users it did -- would Nintendo lose their incentive to create new games? Would it make Mario not profitable to develop retroactively? I think the answer to these questions is clear. As is the fact that society is deprived of a huge amount of value here.
tedunangst 13y ago
Would the value of this work be seriously reduced by renaming it to Full Screen Giuseppe?
- IvanK_net 13y ago
  You said it right. Why didn't they start the project FullScreenGiuseppe.com and start their business with a new original trademark? Why did they have to steal?
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
I certainly agree that Nintendo have not done anything similar to this. But what if Nintendo would make a browser-based Mario game with the same functionality? Would it be fair that they , the original authors, would have to compete with him? In these situations in general it is best to think about extremes in both ends. At one extreme there is round corners on the phone - requires no effort at all to "research". Not allowing to duplicate such work is absurd to anyone who has common sense. On the other end - drug formulas. Requires many scientists' hours, expensive equipment and years of testing to come to market, but can be very easily taken apart and duplicated once it is done. It is clear that it would be unfair if he who researched this formula needs to compete with all the copycats who may only be investing in drug reverse-engineering and mass production. It's really hard to draw the line imo, more so to make a law that could not be abused somehow.
- Peaker 13y ago
  About pharma patents, I think many have been misled, as this explanation from the Pirate Party seems very credible: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/an-alternative-to-pharmaceutical-patents/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/an-alterna...
  - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
    It really seems so. Wish my country had a party like that.

by Peaker 13y ago

Silhouette 13y ago

You make a fair argument for changing copyright law to better reflect today's reality without undermining the motivation for having the law in the first place. I don't think someone has much right to complain if they blatantly violate the law as it stands today and then get minimally called on it, though.

rwmj 13y ago
So he's going to change the law to make copyright terms reasonable? No. He should persist in civil disobedience (and of course be prepared to take the consequences).
- Silhouette 13y ago
  And face a $150,000 claim for statutory damages for the wilful infringement? It's easy for a general to consider the optimal strategy for storming a fortified position. He's not going to be the cannon fodder who gets sent in first with little chance of survival.
dragontamer 13y ago
Hell, its not just Copyright law. Trademark law says that you're not allowed to use another company's Brand. Without proper Trademark law, it is impossible to build up a "trustful" relationship between a company and its customers. You are NOT allowed to copy another person's brand that they have spent many years and much money developing. Its just not fair.
- throwaway98604 13y ago
  > Without proper Trademark law, it is impossible to build up a "trustful" relationship between a company and its customers. I disagree. This can still be achieved with the right (non legal) infrastructure to protect your brand i.e. an official Twitter account or domain name that can be used to identify the "legitimate" products from a company. It would be a much better tradeoff to the current cannibalistic nature of our current trademark laws that cripple the development of truly wonderful games like Pokemon Generations [1] while they milk the brand to death by regurgitating the same game with new Pokemon year after year. [1] http://www.indiedb.com/games/pokemon-generations/news/change-of-pace-updates-rescheduled http://www.indiedb.com/games/pokemon-generations/news/change...
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html Trademark law protects you from domain camping and false identities.
    - throwaway98604 13y ago
      Isn't Trademark a form of domain camping, too?
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Domain Camping is when you look at another person's brand and say "I like their brand, lemme pretend to be them". For example, "camping" the site "microSSoft.com" would be domain camping. Trademark law requires you to provably build a brand from the ground up. Hire your own artists, hire your own creativity. Are you honestly telling me that you are so uncreative that you can't create your own brand? Don't recreate "Mario", create your own damn characters! And that is how the world gets better: when you reward creativity. It is virtually impossible to recreate a character, a brand, or anything and actually violate trademark law if you actually built a brand from scratch.

etler 13y ago

Nintendo still sells the original mario bros. game through multiple avenues. This site existing absolutely takes away from Nintendo's profits off the game in a real sense.

spacelizard 13y ago
I disagree, Nintendo has never distributed a PC- or browser-based version of this game. Also, it's debatable whether or not profiting from a thirty-year-old game is adding social value. Nintendo seems to fashion themselves after Disney, in the sense that they place extreme value for themselves on copyright protectionism.
- camus2 13y ago
  > it's debatable whether or not profiting from a thirty-year-old game is adding social value the law says it is not,case closed.
  - throwaway98604 13y ago
    The law is not the end-all-be-all for moral debate, and he raises a reasonable point.
- cpayne 13y ago
  They haven't but they might license someone else to do it.
  - Peaker 13y ago
    Creating derivative works is the most productive avenue for creativity. By requiring a license for it, it is virtually banned. Society loses out on a huge body of derivative works. Note, virtually all works are derivative works, except that now, we're only allowed to derive from stuff created at an arbitrary point when copyrights became perpetual. If this mario game was allowed to benefit the many users it did -- would Nintendo lose their incentive to create new games? Would it make Mario not profitable to develop retroactively? I think the answer to these questions is clear. As is the fact that society is deprived of a huge amount of value here.

tedunangst 13y ago

Would the value of this work be seriously reduced by renaming it to Full Screen Giuseppe?

IvanK_net 13y ago
You said it right. Why didn't they start the project FullScreenGiuseppe.com and start their business with a new original trademark? Why did they have to steal?

cLeEOGPw 13y ago

I certainly agree that Nintendo have not done anything similar to this. But what if Nintendo would make a browser-based Mario game with the same functionality? Would it be fair that they , the original authors, would have to compete with him? In these situations in general it is best to think about extremes in both ends. At one extreme there is round corners on the phone - requires no effort at all to "research". Not allowing to duplicate such work is absurd to anyone who has common sense. On the other end - drug formulas. Requires many scientists' hours, expensive equipment and years of testing to come to market, but can be very easily taken apart and duplicated once it is done. It is clear that it would be unfair if he who researched this formula needs to compete with all the copycats who may only be investing in drug reverse-engineering and mass production. It's really hard to draw the line imo, more so to make a law that could not be abused somehow.

Peaker 13y ago
About pharma patents, I think many have been misled, as this explanation from the Pirate Party seems very credible: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/an-alternative-to-pharmaceutical-patents/ http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/an-alterna...
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  It really seems so. Wish my country had a party like that.