littlebluespark@lemmy.world 10 months ago
DLed for posterity, so once it’s down I can still share it with those interested in actually enjoying it, rather than letting Nintendo continue to ruin shit like the whiny babies they are.
littlebluespark@lemmy.world 10 months ago
DLed for posterity, so once it’s down I can still share it with those interested in actually enjoying it, rather than letting Nintendo continue to ruin shit like the whiny babies they are.
kromem@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s less Nintendo and more shitty trademark and IP laws.
If you don’t aggressively go after anyone that is transgressing your IP, you can lose it.
IP really needs major and comprehensive reform. It’s not going to happen anytime soon as too much is built up around the status quo, but it really should be done.
AnonTwo@kbin.social 10 months ago
I'm pretty sure that only applies to trademark laws, not IP laws.
kromem@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Zelda is trademarked
AnonTwo@kbin.social 10 months ago
...yeah?
IP is different from trademark though. You're using them interchangeably.
EnderofGames@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
It’s *less about shitty trademark or copyright laws, and more about Nintendo.
First off, in all of your posts, you really don’t seem to realize that trademark has nothing to do with fan fiction or recreations. Not a single project that anyone has referenced has attempted to mimic Nintendo’s name and brand to sell a product. Zelda is trademarked, yes, so people can’t sell video games with “The Legend of Zelda” name- which has no bearing on this article or the work cited.
Second, the statute of limitations doesn’t go back three years to some arbitrary date, it goes back to when the alleged crime or infringement occurs. So if someone begins selling a TLoZ knockoff game, they have no grounds in court to say something dopey, like “well actually I started thinking about selling Zelda knockoff games five years ago, so even though I just started last month it is out of the statute of limitations”.
Third, from your list of shitty companies making it the norm, try Valve, who actively gives permission for people to mod and remake their games, and even allow the selling of remakes on their own platform. Or try Capcom, a Japanese company who has never attacked a fan game and still has full control over its IPs. But I digress, not being the norm has nothing to do with this.
If the laws surrounding copyright were suddenly and drastically changed today, Nintendo wouldn’t change their stance or their scare tactics. They don’t have to do it, they aren’t losing out on sales from it- and if modders had the ability to stand up for themselves in court, I don’t believe Nintendo would win even a notable amount of cases.
kromem@lemmy.world 9 months ago
One: Link’s Awakening trademark
Two: Actually, per Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s supreme court decision, damages are limited to 3 years prior to the suit being filed with no recovery for earlier infringements.
Three: [Capcom cease and desist less than a year ago] (kotaku.com/resident-evil-code-veronica-fan-remake…) - did you not even bother checking before confidently stating it ‘never’ happened?