SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 18 2012 02:10 am

And now we have a sequel:

Posted: Jan 18 2012 04:12 am

It's fuckin cool to play as Mega Man. He was way cooler than Mario anyway.

Ryu. That's fuckin sweet.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 08:58 am

I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing PIPA was designed to stop. And you can't really blame them.

"But it's so cool!"

Yeah, but it's still blatant and inexcusable copyright infringement.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 09:53 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing PIPA was designed to stop. And you can't really blame them.

"But it's so cool!"

Yeah, but it's still blatant and inexcusable copyright infringement.

Is he making a cent off of the games?

Posted: Jan 18 2012 10:35 am

It doesn't matter if he's making money off it. By offering this product at all, regardless of whether he profits, he is infringing upon Nintendo's right to profit off their IPs, and it damages their sales. If you weren't able to play that game for free, you might have bought something off one of Nintendo's virtual shops instead.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:01 am

Zelda Classic is a much more blatant infringement. It simulates Zelda's engine and includes basically a complete recreation of the first NES game in the default package.

Also, hooray for Haggleman. He's cool.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

It doesn't matter if he's making money off it. By offering this product at all, regardless of whether he profits, he is infringing upon Nintendo's right to profit off their IPs, and it damages their sales. If you weren't able to play that game for free, you might have bought something off one of Nintendo's virtual shops instead.

I am fairly sure that Syd is correct about it being illegal even if no money is made.

I don't agree that Nintendo loses money because of this specific game. I would agree that the missuses of IP can cause other side effects though, such as the one that I currently have in mind: Why doesn't Nintendo make this game and sell it? Nintendo may simply not want to, and now they have people who want something they don't want to offer. Those people might not have wanted it if it had never existed in the first place.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:06 am

I would say that games like this are disrespectful to the original creators' vision of it. It's like trying to improve a piece of art--who are you to try to add more stuff to it when it was already considered a masterpiece?

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:07 am

Because artists never use art to make new art. Oh wait..

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:12 am

Art is different. Paintings are (usually) one of kind, so basing a new painting off an old painting doesn't damage the intrinsic value of the painting. The Mona Lisa is one of a kind, and putting its likeness on postcards doesn't stop the actual painting that had hands laid upon it by Da Vinci any less valuable.

Also, this isn't art. This is a "look what I can do!" tech demo.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:14 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Art is different. Paintings are (usually) one of kind, so basing a new painting off an old painting doesn't damage the intrinsic value of the painting. The Mona Lisa is one of a kind, and putting its likeness on postcards doesn't stop the actual painting that had hands laid upon it by Da Vinci any less valuable.

Also, this isn't art. This is a "look what I can do!" tech demo.

Then why treat it any differently?

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:22 am

Because a tech demo still needs to be licensed if it uses licenses characters. Coleco sunk a distribution deal between Nintendo and Atari for the Famicom in the US by showing off a Donkey Kong demo running on their Adam computer system at CES 1983. Atari, who had the computer rights to Donkey Kong, called off their negotationsl with Nintendo immediately.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:24 am

Apparently Coleco is proof to the contrary. lol@Atari

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:56 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Art is different. Paintings are (usually) one of kind, so basing a new painting off an old painting doesn't damage the intrinsic value of the painting. The Mona Lisa is one of a kind, and putting its likeness on postcards doesn't stop the actual painting that had hands laid upon it by Da Vinci any less valuable.

Also, this isn't art. This is a "look what I can do!" tech demo.

I was thinking about it in the "video games are art" mindset. As an artist, if I made a video game, I certainly wouldn't want people showing how they're better than me at designing games by using my game as an example of how flawed it is by making it "better".

I don't actually believe this and neither do developers who support mods, but that mindset exists. Also, if da Vinci were alive now, I don't think he would appreciate how people have been using it as of late.

Title: Comic Author Joined: Dec 12 2008 Posts: 1179

The-Excel wrote:

Also, hooray for Haggleman. He's cool.

This, definitely. Love that he included Haggleman and the Demon Returns style for the stages, great nods to both Game Center CX games.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 18 2012 06:07 pm

There's no question he's using copyrighted images and trademarked characters that belong to someone else. It's not necessarily illegal to do so, however - it could be allowed under fair use. That would be up to the lawyers to fight over, but the nature of the work (a non-commerical, non-profit fan work) would be taken into account.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 07:11 pm

The fact that it's a playable game and that it's not a parody makes fair use a difficult argument.

He's using someone else's IPs to attract interest in his programming. There's nothing fair about that. Nonprofit fan remakes of Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime made on the LTTP engine were shut down as copyright infringement. This is no different.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 18 2012 07:33 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

The fact that it's a playable game and that it's not a parody makes fair use a difficult argument.

He's using someone else's IPs to attract interest in his programming. There's nothing fair about that. Nonprofit fan remakes of Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime made on the LTTP engine were shut down as copyright infringement. This is no different.

It might be parody. "Parody" doesn't always mean "make fun of". It can also be a rearrangement done as a commentary or something... I'd really love to get an exact meaning and a bit of insight but Wikipedia isn't up today.

And just because Nintendo sends a letter claiming copyright doesn't mean they're right. It's just really not worth it for a guy doing a fangame in his spare time to fight the C&D letter. Fair use and the like is determined in a courtroom.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 08:34 pm

Fernin wrote:

The-Excel wrote:

Also, hooray for Haggleman. He's cool.

This, definitely. Love that he included Haggleman and the Demon Returns style for the stages, great nods to both Game Center CX games.

Kinda sucks they didn't use the original sprites for Haggleman and used an edit of Ryu instead though.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:18 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing PIPA was designed to stop. And you can't really blame them.

"But it's so cool!"

Yeah, but it's still blatant and inexcusable copyright infringement.

This is why SOPA and PIPA is bad. Sure, this game uses art, music and sound from an Nintendo IP. HOWEVER! Has Nintendo sued the developer over this game? No. So either they do not know about it, or don't find it a threat to them, so they don't find a reason to sue the developer. And as of now, Nintendo not suing the developer will not affect the developer in any way.

Enter SOPA/PIPA.

Now, even if Nintendo wants to sue them for infringement, this game gets blocked automatically, which I see (and everyone should see) as unfair. Now the developer is forced to not be able to promote his game or let others play it, regardless of what Nintendo wants. So basically, if Nintendo don't want that game gone, SOPA/PIPA pretty much says "Fuck you, doing it anyway".

Also, there are far worse things that rip-off Nintendo. An example would be the Mole Kart game for iOS (review by me coming soon!), which rips off Mario Kart in terms of track design and item abilities, and is sold commercially at a price. Nintendo has yet to sue the comnpany that made it.

Also, I highly doubt Super Mario Crossover will be damaging to Nintendo's profits. If anything, it would actually promote Nintendo's Super Mario franchise, and make people want to buy more Super Mario games.

Posted: Jan 18 2012 11:27 pm

i'd argue that it is making him money. Machinima doesn't put up videos if they're not guaranteed to get a ton of hits, which surprise, makes ad revenue. If you look past the fact that he's using familiar characters, the game actually looks like typical platforming stuff, nothing horrible but nothing extraordinary. Take away the known characters and it becomes just another ho-hum flash engine mario with sloppy bullshit controls.

Posted: Jan 19 2012 12:03 am

Murdar Machene wrote:

Take away the known characters and it becomes just another ho-hum flash engine mario with sloppy bullshit controls.

Exactly. If he were to reskin this game to avoid copyright infringement, no one would care about it.

Posted: Jan 19 2012 03:50 am

Damn I only had 10 extra lives at the end!!!! This was hard.

Posted: Jan 19 2012 03:56 am

Quote:

Now, even if Nintendo wants to sue them for infringement, this game gets blocked automatically, which I see (and everyone should see) as unfair. Now the developer is forced to not be able to promote his game or let others play it, regardless of what Nintendo wants. So basically, if Nintendo don't want that game gone, SOPA/PIPA pretty much says "Fuck you, doing it anyway".

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's not true. Under SOPA, if Nintendo didn't want to go after the developer, all they'd have to do is NOT appeal to a judge for a court order. C&D orders that SOPA allows still have to be brought to the court system by the copyright holder. It's not automatic at all. If Nintendo wanted to allow the guy to continue, all they'd have to do is nothing

All SOPA does is skip the lawsuit process in taking punitive action. It allows sites to be blocked before a lawsuit has played out. The copyright law itself remains the same, and as such, a copyright holder would still have to bring the claim to court for anything to happen.

Posted: Jan 19 2012 06:32 am

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Quote:

Now, even if Nintendo wants to sue them for infringement, this game gets blocked automatically, which I see (and everyone should see) as unfair. Now the developer is forced to not be able to promote his game or let others play it, regardless of what Nintendo wants. So basically, if Nintendo don't want that game gone, SOPA/PIPA pretty much says "Fuck you, doing it anyway".

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's not true. Under SOPA, if Nintendo didn't want to go after the developer, all they'd have to do is NOT appeal to a judge for a court order. C&D orders that SOPA allows still have to be brought to the court system by the copyright holder. It's not automatic at all. If Nintendo wanted to allow the guy to continue, all they'd have to do is nothing

All SOPA does is skip the lawsuit process in taking punitive action. It allows sites to be blocked before a lawsuit has played out. The copyright law itself remains the same, and as such, a copyright holder would still have to bring the claim to court for anything to happen.

The second paragraph negated what you said in the first. Also, if it gets blocked, it would pretty much be the same thing as it been taken down by Nintendo's request. Except Nintendo didn't request it. And when before is it blocked? As soon as it is reported as infringing? As soon as Nintendo is about to start a lawsuit?

If the former is true than I was mostly right in it being automatic.