Illegal Competition
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- Not all competition is treated equally, and because of that, certain industries end up lop-sided and unjust. In this light, I bring you a long term dream of mine and a short term one.
LiquidZulu - Why Artists Shouldn't Own Their Art:
• Why Artists Shouldn't ...
Stephan Kinsella - Against Intellectual Property:
mises.org/library/book/agains...
Uniquenameosaurus - Why Creators Shouldn't Own Their Creations:
• Why Creators Shouldn't...
Danny Duchamp - "But Who Will Enforce My Copyright":
• "But Who Will Enforce ...
Stanford article on Fair Use:
fairuse.stanford.edu/overview...
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction: Spirit of Competition
01:24 Switch Hardware in 2024
04:11 Exclusivity
07:26 A World Without IP
10:35 The Legality of Fan Works
13:04 Helldivers 2 Gives Me Hope - Ігри
For those just tuning in, I highly recommend checking out some of the videos in the description if you have objections to this line of reasoning.
Uniquenameosaurus' video covers a lot of different methods for monetization of art that allow it to also be free of charge.
Danny Duchamp's video covers the history of IP law + some of the moral claims that "ideas are property."
LiquidZulu's video rigorously covers the differences between actual property and intellectual property, and addresses a number of pro-IP arguments from various YT creators.
Hope you enjoy!
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I hate the fact that companies have so much power and can ruin art and history, just because "It's in their legal right".
Thank you for this video and linking those other ones. I hope that one day, the idea's of copyright and patents are a thing of the past.
It's strange that you've not taken into account so many things that your argument is entirely lopsided itself. There's so many logical fallacies that makes your argument more of an opinion piece than a true piece of discussion about the current state of IP laws.
The burger allegory is what's described as a false dilemma - there are clearly alternative pathways within capitalism which exists to bolster competition. Economists have often discussed ways to bypass some of these challenges so the existence of that information already makes your video feel dead on arrival for more well read and researched watchers.
Or saying Nintendo suing or DMCA claiming as many people as they can and not even further exploring some of these cases is disingenuous to what I gather is your cause. It's also a slippery slope and hasty generalisation fallacy by way of how you presented it..
Hyperbole is also not helping your case; saying ["most" and not "many" joy-cons are prone to drifting] is semantically wrong *, and these hyperbolic use of words throughout your video just to push your argument across the finish line is highly disingenuous.
It was also odd to rain praise on a device (Aya Neo's Odin 2) and comparing it to the Switch Lite, which is in an entirely different price range. I get the spirit of where you're coming from, but it's an odd way of going about it.
I could go on but Nintendo doesn't need me to defend them, nor do I want to.
My comment is really to point out that the fallacies in your video hinders any genuine or sincere argument for IP to not be owned. Your average comment will keep you in your confirmation bias, because they're incentivised by their personal and subjective beliefs and environmental factors.
What would have also helped your argument would be to use other examples besides Nintendo (because your argument isn't original, many other media academics have argued your same point but does not just centre it around just one company). I can tell you've formed part of your world view through just a few of those references you've listed, but otherwise it was a decent effort.
* gamerant.com/survey-40-percent-switch-users-joy-con-drift/
I'm being brief by not addressing a number of possible questions or counterpoints. The purpose of my video wasn't to convince people who strongly disagree with my position.
Deliberating between DMCA cases wasn't necessary for the point I was making.
I said Ayn's Odin 2 came at a fantastic price, not a comparable price.
When I said "the joysticks on most official switch hardware are prone to breaking," what I was saying was, the type of joystick which is used on most switch hardware, the joystick that comes with all joycons, is prone to breaking. Unless a 40% failure rate (according to your source) doesn't count as "prone," my sentence is just fine.
dont bother replying to that guy, he is a dishonest shill who will use semantics to just preach to a choir of nintendo bootlickers
Like nigga really went "Akshually its ONLY 40 percent of joycons, so thats not most, so I win byebye🤓"
Abd the fact he thought just mentioning logical fallacys if they were yugioh cards ment something lol.
@@Timdeuces
I think your down playing Joy-con drift. Its not a matter of if, but when. All joycons seem to have the defect and it seems to be dependent on how the stick is used, but the stick eventually starts to drift no matter what.
@@ProjectionProjects2.7182OK
>put the pickles over the onion slices
Completely new type of sandwich. It's no longer Tim's Burger.
Great take and editing
Thanks!
Agreed😊
Touhou. ZUN is an absolute legend for allowing for pretty much anyone to do anything they want with it. The music, fangames, animations, and so much more that have come out of the Touhou community is amazing. Meanwhile you have ZUN who keeps creating new games by himself, going about his life and drinking beer (he actually has his own beer brand now too!). He would be well within his legal right to strike down games and albums that are making money off of his creations, but he knows that allowing them to exist fosters great community and gets more people interested, ultimately leading people back to the games he's creating.
Wishing the best for you and your channel, I loved that video very much!
Great video!
If you are a Nintendo fan, piracy of their latest game are your moral obligation, never support anti consumer practice from any business, only reward them for their massive prosumer move. My list of non boycott corpo are in the single digit nowadays when 95%+ of the tech industry are in that boycott list. I use Linux BTW on every system i use.
To paraphrase Louis Rossman, the final nail in the coffin for a business is when even the pirates don't want their stuff anymore.
I will go as far as to say if you are going to boycott a company, why pirate?
I'm pretty sympathetic to this line of reasoning, so I love that you've lain it all out for me, because it makes it easier to critique. I see two alternative ways of viewing it.
1. Product bundling. This is really just product bundling- the Switch is bundled with its games through law (and cryptography). Presumably, people still buy Nintendo consoles and games because they're still a good enough deal (despite limited modding and fan game potential), but, as you pointed out, it's just painful that we can't get a better one. Normally, this wouldn't exactly be insurmountable, because someone could make better individual products to compete with them. We already have the hardware, but, presumably, not the games.
So, why can't someone capture the same appeal as Nintendo? Are there actually few enough organized artists that no one else can do the same thing as them? Are we just stubborn, or over committed to the franchises we already like? It seems very odd to say that there needs to be competition over the consumption of particular products, especially in entertainment, where none of it is necessary in the first place. Fan works get even more granular because they need a freedom to use particular elements of a work, which again there should theoretically be alternatives for. Does it need to be an Earthbound fangame, and not something else, or its own thing? If the deal is worsened, there should be other, better options in such a big industry, but not everyone agrees that there are. Maybe we've changed as a society to be too reliant on media, and a larger-scale approach like that won't work anymore.
2. Contracts. Intellectual property can be justified as an agreement between the individual artist and consumer that the consumer is not to do certain things such as spreading or modifying the work in return for receiving it in the first place. While the government makes it the default, it's not like this agreement is necessary: plenty of people have started using Creative Commons and open source licenses to give up some of their control over IP and make a non-default contract, which makes the product more valuable. However, copyright terms are broadly implicitly accepted, and most serious productions don't see the alternatives as legitimate options. I'd definitely jump at an indie studio producing games with 28-year licenses, but I don't know of any, and the big companies sure won't try it out until they see others succeeding with it.
Practically, this points back to consumer action and awareness, as always. Action might not happen due to the complexity of the market and our current society not properly judging these aspects of a product. Then again, a world without copyright might not be practical either. Every time one questions copyright, it goes back to its original purpose: to promote the production of art for the public good. While I can imagine an ideal society where everyone is an artist in his free time (or, like Unique suggests, artists get their funding before a project and don't need incentives afterwards), I'm pretty pessimistic about either of those models producing the same quality of media we see in the real world (even for all its flaws).
I still see this as a very open question. Does all this actually make up for the restrictions on what we can do with media, especially in the modern day, with all of our tools and potential freedom to create? Who knows! But I like seeing discussion of it, and awareness always helps keep companies in line.
I also love that you saw the same beauty as me in the Helldivers 2 debacle. Between that and opting out of Discord's forced arbitration, it felt recently like people are taking a stand, and I'm excited to see if something more comes of all this.
Please vote with consumer and worker rights in mind to solve this problem.
PERFECT VIDEO!
I wish more people could see the truth about IP, that it is a monopoly supported by the government, and that the world would be a much better place without it!
Thank you so much for your video, you got a new subscriber!
I hope that one day IP and copyright laws would just stop existing and then we could have a lot of diferent games and shows of our favorite medias without corporate greed and monopolies corrupting it😢.
Seeing the truth of IP law and saying it's abolishment is purely anti-corporate are two different things. In fact, getting rid of it could give corps more power because copyright and IP are not solely in the realm of large corps, but also smaller creators.
@@RippahRooJizah yea
Removing IP removes the very incentives that lead to sleezy, dishonest behavior. It means businesses have to run a tight ship since they can't rest on past works or exclusivity for more income. They must produce quality content in order to earn support.
@Timdeuces It doesn't remove the incentive, it just alters it
@@RippahRooJizah you could make a video about IP and stuff, you seem to know a lot about it.
let me stop u right there.
The switch was, in fact, NOT the first of it's kind.
YES it was the first Hybrid to go full mainstream
BUT it's not the first of it's kind.
(great video tho)
Fair
I believe the first, or at least earliest example I can think of, was the Sega Nomad.
I'd recommend anyone who is interested in this topic watch "Why is Nintendo so overprotective of its intellectual property" if they want a lawyer give a legal take for why Nintendo is the way they are. Moon channel provides some great food for thought about the cut throat nature of big business and why Nintendo considers it essential to be so quick to threaten litigation with their IPs.
Yeah good information in that video.
That moonchannel guy is a shill, he once tried defending the complettionist who was an obvious charity fraud commiter - the only "lawyer" skills he is using is being a sophist and contusing people by sounding reasonable
Wait that was moony defending Jirard? Damn, that gives me pause.
@@Timdeuces I wouldnt trust any big yt channel on principle tbh
Sucks, YT removed the previous comment.
I dunno, it sounds like a libertarian argument, well intentioned but ultimately too naive for its own good.
I was hoping for an argument for an alternative but if I understand correctly its just... remove copyright? like off the top of my head i can think of so many examples where this would be catastrophic within capitalism.
I think it's kind of the notion that barriers of any sort is seen as 'bad', regardless of how necessarily they may be. I mean, given that there are already attempts at making money off of pre-existing IPs by either just taking it or causing confusion with knockoffs, I can't imagine how abolishing copyright won't be a mess in the long run.
On the whole artists shouldn't own their art argument, I agree and disagree, there is a way we can let them own their work while promoting competition.
They can own the work yes but it should be separated into two categories private ownership. I.E this is their private logo or image, etc. In the case of private ownership the owner had the exclusive right to decide who uses the owned property like modern copyright is now.
The other option would of course be, public ownership. If a person, persons or company made an artistic product like say Mario just as an example and begins to sell it for use it becomes public ownership. In the instance of public ownership as the artist or artists have used their product in exchange for monetary or other gain, then when the product is discontinued by the artist or artists is no longer their exclusive property. This would allow those who have purchased the game to mod, copy, and redistribute a product as much as they want, as long as they aren't selling the product for money. In essence, once a company or person stops selling their product it becomes public domain and falls under free use.
I also think that perhaps we should look at how long copyright terms apply to things now in the cases mentioned above. In the case of private ownership, it should be indefinite until it is made public ownership. Once it is public ownership a copyright lifespan of 10 years should be placed on the product. After the ten years is up, the original creators can no longer claim all of the profits on a product and it should be taxed at a higher rate than previous and disallowed to pursue legally any persons redistributing their game or product freely, that is without monetary or personal gain.
This means that any developer just in it for the money would probably shell out a bunch of crap products made to only last ten years and then move on to the next crap product resulting in an eventual public disinterest and collapse of the creator(s). It would also make it so that people who truly love their product and what they are making would still continue making it while driving competition into that ten year window. Now in theory when a company is no longer interested in what they made private groups of hell even devs who worked on and loved what they did can continue updating and caring for their game. As for competition in that ten year window, that would promote TONS of competition and drive the market to make better games that the public is actually more interested in because if they aren't, after that 10 year window, their profit margins will decrease drastically. The more I type here, the more information and benefit I think of for this idea but I'll stop here. There are of course negatives too, but generally I feel a system like this, after some refinement, would be a very, very good solution.
(This is a bit long but I recommend the read)
You made a good argument against the idea of intellectual property laws. While I don't fully agree with every point you made, there are some things I can 100% agree upon:
The use of emulators to play games, fan games, rom hacks (Im going to add game dumping and console modding as well) should be 100%, unambiguously legal and fall under fair use. Im sick and tired of this "legal grey area" bullshit that revolves around the things I listed. These laws at least need to be significantly rewritten to give more power back to the people.
If the people had more power over how Intellectual property is used it would force companies like Nintendo to actually compete on the same playing field as their fans. Because now they have to compete they would be forced to make higher quality re-releases of their older games. Ship of Harkinian comes to mind when I think of "fans do what Nintendon't". Its sad that fans can decompile an entire game from the ground up, make a PC port of that game and make a better product then the billion dollar corporation that already has a working source code for the game. Nintendo dose not even need to decompile anything as I said they already have the source code. What is their excuse here exactly?
Super Mario 3D Allstars also comes to mind when I think of Nintendo at their worse. That collection was pitiful and did not compete with the offerings of third party emulation. Fans of the game had already decompiled SM64, made a PC port and got the game running in wide screen at 60fps. Nintendo could not even do change the frame rate for SM64 in 3D Allstars to "celebrate" Marios 35th Anniversary. Other game collections by other companies were more high quality and had more content for a lesser price the 3D Allstars. What is Nintendo's excuse here exactly?
I swear Nintendo has this stick up their ass about copyright when it comes to fan works. What are they so afraid of? That their own fans will do better then them? That their own fans wont buy their new games? Nintendo seems to take pride in their work. Why would they think that a fan game would replace their official games? Seems silly for Nintendo to be worried about that, after all they have some of the most talented developers in the world, right? They could EASILY eclipse there fans but yet chose not to. I wonder why? Its almost as if they KNOW they can get away with putting in less effort simply because they have power over their fans.
Overall good video. If you want to know more about this topic involving Nintendo I would recommend you watching a video by a UA-camr by the name of Nerrel who made a video titled: "Mario 3D All-Stars and the Case for Competition", if you want to hear more about this topic regarding Nintendo. Im curious if you can pin my comment? I think it adds more to your points and goes into more detail as to the problem here specifically with Nintendos mentality on IP laws in general.
It makes me wonder if they even do have the source code since they seem to just use ROMs anyways.
And yeah I tend to love Nerrel's vids, definitely a good watch.
@@Timdeuces pretty sure they do, confirm with the giga leak that had happen like years ago
@@Timdeuces We know for certain that they do have the source codes. The 3DS remake of Ocarina of time 3D was made using a modified version of the Original games source code. We know this because many of the glitches from the original game appear in the remake and that would only be possible if the code being used was the same.
Nintendo is well know for having their own personal archives of their stuff that they can use at anytime. Thats why the 2020 Giga leak had so much unused game content buried in it. Its because the hackers involved with the leak were able to access some of Nintendo's archives and retrieve data from it. They have assets for their games going back 20 to 30 years. It would not be a surprise if they also had the source codes for their older games as well.
@@Yoshizuyuner Yes the giga leak confirms that they archive their stuff. Its highly likely that they archive their source codes as well.
As far as emulation goes, I think it's a mix of general mainstream interest, time, money, and profit.
Some people need to understand that not everyone is so willing to invest so much in older games. Just as some people will ignore any and all modern games, some will do the same for retro games.
Also some of these emulators take years to perfect, and would likely take extra hardware to make full use out of. I've seen people complain about being resold old game they've already played but if you want to go the completely legal route... how are you going to emulate an NES game? Buy a used copy or pay for a from from Nintendo, on top of buying an emulator and whatever deck they put out so, on the off chance you still own 30-40 year old games to use it on. Or a game off a disc, in a time where people are trying to get rid of disc drives.
I don't think there's any way a company could make an emulator that's on par with some of the best out there. It's likely more cost effective to have only singular games emulated or remastered. And at least with a remaster you might get additional content.
Tbh i understand why patents exist, theyre kind of needed to incentivise companies to make new tech or gaming products. However, the indefinite patents for discontinued consoles is pretty stupid imo. If a console isnt made anymore, isnt supported with updates or new games and has been abandoned outside of using the name for merch sales, they should loose the hardware part of the patent. Like it really doesnt hurt nintendo if someone pirates a gameboy game on their pc, but letting them keep the trademark for markeing and stuff would let them continue to profit of the design and nostalgia. Consumers would win, and so would the company.
Patents are issued for design 15 years or utility 20 years. They are not indefinite. This certainly is longer than a console lifecycle but they do expire.
Copyright is much longer. Generally lifetime of the author plus an additional 70 years.
Yeah I don't really see tendies turning on Nintendo anytime soon, they've been begging for thousand Year door for years and then they find out that it's going to be launching at half the performance of the original and they're ready to go on defense instead of actually questioning it
#abolishcopyright
#abolishcopyrightlaw #reformcopyrightlaw #abolishpatentlaw #reformpatentlaw
the price and we're I can buy and is there free shipping
I'd recommend looking at the channel Retro Game Corps for some deep dive reviews on a lot of these consoles. That channel is great at informing and helping people make decisions on them.
I put forward this olive leaf. Do away with current copyright periods (death + 90 years in the worst case) and make it a fixed 3 years after creation of the work, with no exceptions for re-releases. This keeps some financial incentive on the creator to invest in a work that costs a lot of money (like a movie or an AAA game) but also frees the work for remixing by the public after that exclusivity period, AND brings back the incentive to create new works to follow up on your previous works rather than IP hoarding as a means of revenue.
Also, let's reform other forms of IP law that are frequently abused in anti-competitive ways - such as is frequently the case for patent law in software algorithms
I think 3 years is not nearly enough time. Especially with dealing with modern games, where 3 years isn't even enough time for a lot of games to be made. Unless you want stuff like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5, which was rushed out the door before the company lost the contract on TH games.
I was talking about 3 years after publication for copyright protection. That doesn't prevent you spending as much time as you need or want to develop your product before you publish it.
@@Autotrope It very much does prevent someone from spending as much time as one need. If the protection only starts after publication (which isn't a set date given early access is a thing, or stuff like MMORPGs or live service games), what's stopping someone from taking ideas before something comes out? Previews are one thing but some people just love leaking stuff. What if someone releases an early build and takes credit for it (and releasing an early build of something before an official release is not something unheard of)?
Maybe someone can successfully keep their work hidden until release, but that's not a given.
@@RippahRooJizah what you're describing is what I would consider to be a net positive - the ability to remix other people's work after a more reasonable exclusivity period.
Ordered a new drive for my laptop to try steamos, wish me luck ...
Steam os, batocera, Linux mint. Good luck picking only one
There is no way to Make the hardware to emulate "Switch" legallly. they own the OS, BIOS and Firmware. You can sell those systems shown. But it's the software needed to PLAY
those games that make it illegal. It has little to do with the Software the switch can play but rather the software to power the system. Nintendo would do well to BUY or find a middle ground for
those makers of the hardware and they can license that that company make the next round of hardware, or the hardware maker have rights to the BIOS, Firmware, and OS.
However, because Sony, and Nintendo keep their signed Firmware and bios under lock and key (because thats how you mod your console. With an Unsigned dump of those things listed)
it's never going to happen. once you can read the Firmware you can mod it to write to the Nintendo Hardware and play unsigned / Homebrew packages.
From my understanding it's only illegal to distribute someone else's IP. You could absolutely make hardware preloaded with emulators. Obviously straight copying Nintendos software and games would be illegal. Although I could see arguing old bios and os are abandonware after support is ended if abandonware legal in your area.
@@DarthTinderalla-qm9zw The Hardwares BIOS is owned by the maker of the original system. example : If you use a Switch emulator you need 3 files. The Firmware, the Keys and the Titles. Those are not public. In the example of Nintendo, those three files ARE their IP. You would need to come to an agreement with them.
It's like saying Windows doesn't belong to Microsoft because i wanted to buy a game on Microsoft Store legally.
Since you have already acknowledged that we don't live on planet Timothia and seems like you are very knowledgeable about the subject, I would very much like you know your opinion on "Why is Nintendo so Overprotective of its Intellectual Property?" by the Moon Channel. I was very much compelled and swayed by his arguments and didn't look further into it. Maybe he is wrong. But I would like to know why and how he is wrong. Maybe you can look into it and share your thoughts.
Moon Channel has good information, and that video is very illuminating on how companies in Nintendo's position operate under IP law.
It doesn't mean I approve of their actions, or that I wouldn't expect better of them, though.
I'm a bit skeptical that the dangers mentioned are as close as Moony made them out to be, considering how little Valve polices their intellectual property, which is also incredibly valuable.
@@Timdeuces I think moony acknowledges as much, and says the Nintendo can actually skirt around some of the law and which will keep their fans happy. But the main thing he talked about is the trademark genericization, which made total sense to me.
Nintendo had a a first hand experience where they were able to win a lawsuit while they were very small, against a giant company at the time such as Universal. That lead to the Universal losing the King Kong trademark. Which explains their action of shutting down anything involving their IP, no matter how small. Moreover, if don't do it, that leads to the genericization problem. That maybe the only point of contention, as they technically can greenlit some of the fan projects and stuff without risking genericization of their trademarks.
Also, there is one thing I must say after watching your video. If you disagree with nintendo's business practices, why do you need to consume their content? You talk about how fans have to go through hoops and search for files to play their games on a better hardware, why is that necessary? You can always wait, because they are going to rerelease these games on better hardware in the future anyway. Or just stop engaging with nintendo all together. I think they are entitled to say they don't want you to play the games they produce on a better hardware, no matter how shitty that makes them.
Lastly, the point about joycon drift. Many joystick which are not hall-effect joysticks face some level of drift in its lifetime. Even the Latest gaming handhelds(including ROG Ally, over 700 USD) are not immune, so singling out nintendo on that seem a little bit disingenuous. Of course there are more reports of joycon drift because there are more of switches out there.
My first reaction to the fears of trademark genericization is unsympathetic, since that in my eyes would be a net benefit for the consumer. Exclusivity has been the source of many anti-consumer practices, and the more that is combated, the better. But even so, once again I don't see Valve, Sega, or most other companies behaving so poorly towards their fans, despite holding valuable IPs.
I believe in game ownership and preservation, and the more power you put into a third party over the content that you own, the less viable the prospect becomes. But besides that, I was simply highlighting a place where competition is stifled due to IP protections. There are markets for more powerful Switch-like handhelds, or more portable ones, which are not being properly supplied. If you're coming from the perspective that ideas are property, this sort of critique may look entitled.
It's true that I am feeling much less like engaging with Nintendo's products in the future. I tend to only emulate titles I already paid for in some form, or that are so old they're no longer being sold. So for me, it may be that the Switch is my last console. I have more confidence in indies to provide great games while behaving positively towards their communities. To paraphrase Louis Rossman, the true mark of the death of a brand is when even the pirates don't want your stuff anymore.
@@Timdeuces First of all I feel like you are restating some of the issues that has already been addressed. We can both agree that we don't live in your idyllic world. So, while you would be happy if Nintendo's trademarks get genericized, their trademarks will lose value and the company as a whole will too. Which is not good from their perspective. So I can understand why they won't want that. Valve, Sega are not in possession of as huge of IPs as Nintendo. Plus they have other businesses. Steam for Valve and Pachinko machines for Sega.
I do believe in game ownership and preservation as well, which is exactly why I would be pro Nintendo, because unlike Microsoft, they are still gonna support physical media. That however is a very different issue from emulating pirated copies of an unreleased game, which Yuzu got dinged for. Games ARE in fact preserved. Every game is. Because someone just needs to create an emulator in the future to play the files. And that can be done at any point in the future. For example, fairly recently a virtual boy emulator was released on 3DS, and it is able to play the preserved games. Before this, who exactly was preserving those virtual boy games by emulating them? the answer is NO ONE. So the game preservation excuse for pirating the game makes no sense to me. Good for you that you emulate the games that you paid for, but you must be very aware that 90% of those who are emulating Switch don't give a crap about preservation.
I don't quite understand what you mean by the last half of your 2nd paragraph. Are you advocating for the more powerful switch-likes to be able to play nintendo games? Because there are already more powerful switch like on the market and Nintendo isn't holding them back. If you are saying they should release their games on these more powerful handhelds, then i will say again, Nintendo is entitled to release their products where ever they want and that has nothing to do with IP laws.
The last sentence of your reply is a hilarious counter to yourself. Because I think Nintendo games are one of the more popular things to be pirated. I will say this, Nintendo is not obligated to operate their business by how fans view them. Also, fans are not obligated to buy Nintendo products if they feel like the quality is lacking or not satisfactory, they are free to vote with their wallets. If you feel like Nintendo is anti-consumer, anti-fans, etc then let them die out naturally. However, they are one of the few companies in gaming business who treat their employees right, and I feel like that is the only obligation that Nintendo has as a company and they are doing right by it.
We both understand why Nintendo wants to keep their trademark, but that shouldn't garner sympathy. Like how Tim wouldn't want to lose the profitability of his burger patent, even though it's highly anti-consumer.
Physical media is not game preservation. It may be DRM free, but it will degrade and become unusable if you don't break into it and back it up. Game preservation is ownership over that data, being able to bring it with you into the future long past your hardware's lifetime. We can thank rippers and emulators for that possibility.
I googled around. We had 3rd party VB emulation as early as 2008 with RealityBoy, long before 3DS. Granted, it didn't have 3D, but it preserved those games in a playable state. Nowadays, we have ones that work with VR headsets. All unofficial 3rd party.
Nintendo's supposed "preservation" is locked to their hardware, only available for a limited time. This is true for their retro games, and also all the original eShop games that go away when they shut down. This isn't preservation, but another Disney vault situation. They want to be able to keep selling you back the data you paid for since you can't bring it forward to current gen. They also don't offer the full libraries of their old systems. Only a narrow selection of their own titles. To say that Nintendo is properly preserving gaming history is laughable.
As for piracy, you can see why it's necessary for game preservation, but it's also a check against anti-consumerism enabled by IP law. The more anti-consumer the industry gets, the more popular piracy becomes, as people start to feel like companies didn't earn their dollar. If you think the company isn't obligated to serve its customers, then its customers aren't obligated to play by the rules either.
How would a software company be compensated? Donations aren't sustainable
All those other methods I mentioned. You as a worker should realize that if you do work before you're paid, no one owes you for that work. However, if you do that work with the understanding that you're building a portfolio, you may build a reputation and earn the dollars of many people, who are looking for someone worth supporting.
Nintendo is scumtendo. People wouldn't do fangames if they actually did something good with their more forgotten or lazier games
Great video and I mostly agree, but I do have one question.
Would the removal of IP not discourage creating new art and take away any chance that small creators would ever make a profit?
The idea of fans improving the products of large companies or forcing them to improve their products themselves sounds great. But wouldn't the same thing just happen in reverse more often, given the resources that large companies have?
Let's say you're an indie developer that just created the first game in what could potentially become a huge franchise. Companies like Nintendo would probably be looking for games exactly like that and then, with their superior marketing and their ability to more quickly develop games given their hundreds of developers, would just steal your game franchise idea. This causes you to be forgotten and completely destroys your plans of being an independent game developer (Which might even cause you to work for Nintendo instead of competing against them).
As unbelievable as it sounds in a world full of IPs, when a large gaming company wants to they can create far bigger, more thought out and higher quality games than any indie developer ever could. The way I see it, a world without IPs would be a world even more dominated by greedy companies, that are even harder to out compete than they already are. Yes games and art in general would probably be better, but the idea of companies getting even more power and giving the average person even less of a chance to escape their unfulfilling job by creating art doesn't sound good to me.
I think the idea of other talented people using your ideas to make an even better project is a positive one.
But if it does end up being unethical by most people's standards, you'd probably see a more positive and constructive version of cancel culture take effect. Art thieves are punished by the community even in current day, and so if people think a person or company is just grifting off of someone else's work, they will be unlikely to support that company's future endeavors, especially because people aren't paying directly for the art, but deciding which artists they choose to support.
The Uniquenameosaurus vid I linked in the description goes into more detail on this subject.
@@Timdeuces I don't fully agree with the idea that a different version of cancel culture would fix the issue. It's not like companies being openly unethical is a new thing.
As an example: Nestle. Nestle has done incredibly inhumane things and has even indirectly killed people in their past and still continue to do so, but are still one of the biggest companies in the world without any sign of that changing. What I think is important to remember is that the average person doesn't care about internet drama and even if they did, why would the want to boycott Nintendo?
In a world without IPs companies like Nintendo would be in a similar position to Nestle, they'd be very unethical but at the same time, would make great products that people would want to keep consuming. Sure I could boycott Nestle for their border line slave labor, but I could also just continue to consume very tasty and cheap chocolate.
And this isn't even close to exclusive to Nestle. This is basically how we in the west have consumed things since the start of globalization. If something is convenient we do not care about how it's produced.
Remember that people aren't required to pay for the art, meaning their spending will be predicated on their belief in whichever artist/company they want to support. They will want to make sure they're informed on that artist/company, their ethics, and their history, since they're considering whether or not they want to bankroll their career.
@@Timdeuces But in this world without IP the average consumer would still want to support unethical companies because that allow them to keep making very high quality and high budget games. Sure I could support an indie developer working on that same franchise, but why would I if they'll just end up making lower quality games. I, the consumer, profit when I support unethical behavior, this is already an almost inherent part of capitalism, but would be made even worse without intellectual property.
In that case, the consumer is supporting something they don't consider unethical, as opposed to being forced to support an unethical company because "they have product."
Again, my view is that a company making a good product based on someone else's idea is fine. Good, even. For the reasons I went over in the video, no one can own an idea.
Joycon drift can't just be fixed by "a minor adjustment in manufacturing" its just something that happens to analog sticks. The only way to get rid of it is to use a different stick design entirely. Thats why all these hall effect controllers are coming out.
On top of that, I have 5 switches in my house, and the only one that has drifted is the one that belongs to my 12 year old, and he mistreats everything. His switch is the only with a broken screen, and the only with noticeable damage to the rubber on the thumbsticks. He leaves it on the floor, steps on it, sits on it, etc. He just doesn't care.
It was discovered a while ago that the reason that joycon drift happens most of the time is that there is a gap between the joystick housing and the back housing of the joycon/switchlite. This caused the joystick housing to slowly come apart as it was pressed on. You can fix a lot of them just by putting a strip of card stock or craft foam behind the joystick to apply pressure against the back of the housing. VK's Channel goes over how this works in a video from two years ago.
the TLDR was Nintendo was too cheap to put a square of foam behind the joystick boxes to fix the problem. I can buy a sheet of craft foam from a dollar store, enough foam to do dozens of joycon repairs. It would have cost them pennies.
@@alaricpaley6865 Thats prettycool that you can fix them like that, but its an inherent design flaw going all the way back to PS1/N64 sticks at least.
They just end up drifting eventually, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. It literally the plastic wearing down. Even if you apply this fix, its a bandaid, it will fix it short term, and they will drift again eventually, and the only determining factor is how much use, and how hard you are using the item.
Hall effect sticks literally dont have physical contact being made, so nothing to wear down over time, its just a hall effect sensor similar to what they use in cam position sensor in cars.
@@EvlEgle Nigga you just called out, your argument is "well this car blew up after 10 miles and its a problem in the whole production line, but its just a fact of life, cause all cars will eventually degrade do to the law of entropy, so there is no changing that🤓"
Everytime I had drift issues on Xbox or ps3 simply cleaning the dust out fixed it. How soft does Nintendos plastic have to be to "wear out" before leaving the box?
@DarthTinderalla-qm9zw Well they don't so jot that down.
They do wear out very quickly, compared to other controllers, because they use miniscule parts.
Still last longer an N64 controller, or a gamecube controller in a smashbro chad's hands.
Helldivers 2 is overrated Live Service (online only, rented) bullshit. If anything, people shilling it take away my hope.
The same can really be said about any online multiplayer focused game.
While it's not my preferred genre in terms of longevity, it does give me and friends a blast for a good while.
UNDERATED AF🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥
This is so naive, it physically hurts.
The burger allegory isn't working...
In your example, Tim patents the concept of a burger. The equivalent of that would be if Nintendo would patent the concept of "action adventure games where you solve puzzles and fight monsters in dungeons", which they haven't done. Everyone can make a Zelda-like game, just not exactly Zelda.
Foamstars is the best example for this right now. It's basically a Splatoon rip-off. Now did big bad Nintendo sue Square Enix? No. Because it's different enough. (Now if only Foamstars were an actually good game without expensive "micro"transactions...)
In reality it is:
Tim's Burger = the IP (which exact ingredients, order of the ingredients, amount of ingredients)
Burger = a certain videogame genre
Sandwiches = videogames as a whole
If everyone was allowed to make Mario games, we wouldn't have a "customer can pick the best option", but a "customer has to search for good Mario games in a sea of bad cashgrab Mario games"-situation instead, because a lot of money hungry developers/publishers wouldn't give a damn about creating a good Jump 'N' Run because they can just slap that popular character on there and call it a day.
Your oversaturation complaint is a non-issue when we have systems for ranking and discovering quality content that we use every day. We follow the creators we know are good, and ignore the ones that are mediocre. We even see some creators remixing each others' work because copyright is less emphasized with certain communities.
The burger analogy holds because if Mario games are what you want to make, you're disallowed from doing so. Lots of people are attached to specific franchises more than the genres. Should they want to add to what they love, making it better, even pushing it in new directions, they are prohibited from doing so. IP law stifles creative innovation.
You are correct in that IP law has limits for more generic ideas (genres). Lawmakers at least recognize the clear creative damage that would be done in trying to protect those. But that does not negate the damage they still do by enforcing copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.
@@Timdeuces Oversaturation is certainly an issue, especially if it can lower the general optics of a platform or IP, and may overwhelm others just coming in. Also a chance of less identity of certain genres of games because, like the OP, I'm not exactly believing that many are above just making any game and slapping Mario on it to make a buck.
The burger analogy doesn't really hold because 'burger' is too general while an IP is more specific. There isn't only 1 kind of burger, but multiple ways a burger can be made. Nintendo isn't stopping people from making hamburgers, they are stopping people from making variants of "Big Macs".
Also I can't say IP law stifles creative innovation. Like, regardless of how one likes fan games, I can't see the shutdown of, say, Pokemon Plutonia or AM2R as stifling 'creative innovation'. At best, maybe some creative iteration, but why is using pre-existing IP needed for 'creative innovation'? Maybe if we were talking about loading minigames or navigational arrows I'd more more willing to agree, not so much just IPs. You don't need, say, Mario to innovate on 3D platforming
In any creative field, when there are no barriers to entry, you will see shovelware. The upside is you will also see massively creative works that wouldn't have been made otherwise, since new blood can easily enter the scene. The solution to the shovelware is community features like follows, ratings, and collections. The best works will rise to the top, and niches could form based on specific tags or genres.
The burger analogy does hold because it's simply about what is and isn't allowed to be made. You cannot make a Mario game legally without Nintendo's permission. This prevents you from competing with them on any of the series they created. Thus, it's possible for them to abandon or ruin your favorite franchise and you can't go anywhere else for it.
If you ask me, I'd much rather allow artists to compete to bring me the best entries in my favorite game series, than to be forced to abandon that series if/when it gets ruined.
@Timdeuces No, the burger analogy doesn't really work, since what you are ultimately suggesting is more comparable to me opening up a McDonalds and saying my Big Macs are better.
Removing IP rights to encourage creativity rings hollow when the entire point is to encourage less creativity. It encourages others to spend less time on the creative process because you want familiar content no matter who it comes from; the creators and process is largely irrelevant.
Setting aside fanworks, if you truly wanted to encourage creativity... why do you need to use Mario? Nintendo are the ones who made Mario, developed him, put in the work, and it helped put them on the map. What even is "competing" with them in "Mario games", if not riding on Nintendo's coattails because they did the work of getting Mario know enough for you take the IP for the sake of "competition".
You don't need Mario to make a platformer that plays similarly to it. You can see a good deal of creativity with games that do that. Cassette Beasts and TemTem would be less creative if they were just Pokemon games.
That's not even getting into concerns over overall consistency, or the confusion it would cause.
As for not having a chance of franchises getting ruined... okay? Not like fanfiction isn't a thing already. Fangames can still come out now, you just have to be careful with it. It sucks when a franchise you like dies, but it would suck more to have multiple sources trying to carry on the legacy of the franchise and fumble.
It does hold up. The genre is sandwiches. The specific game is burgers. I even left in a line about "people are still allowed to make other sandwiches (games in the same genre), but only Tim is allowed to make burgers, everyone's favorite sandwich." Regarding your McDonalds example, yes, selling your own Big Mac would be fair game if you could reverse engineer them or the recipe leaked or something. No theft took place.
All creativity is the use of previous ideas. To limit the use of certain ideas is to limit creativity. Simple as that. Before copyright protections, people still made new, innovative, and highly original works, and they still do in smaller communities like Newgrounds which don't really punish the reuse of other people's content.
Why use Mario? Maybe you would if he's your favorite and you want to try your hand at making a great Mario game. Or if there's a style or genre you're not seeing with it. Plenty of people have the skills and desire to do that. Competing is executing on the series' identifiable parts, and maybe even injecting your own ideas in the process. It is anything you can do with Mario that Nintendon't.
Frankly, it seems calloused that you'd try to invalidate people's passion for specific series and label it as uncreative.
Are people confused as to who made FNaF, or who made Half-Life? Or Undertale? Despite all the fan content which uses and adds to their stories, it seems people can pretty well identify what's part of a canon series and what's not.
If part of your justification for IP law is to cite places where it's not enforced (fan games that fly under the radar), your justification is weak.
It would not suck more to have more people attempting to carry on a franchise's legacy. That would be miles better than a dead or stagnant franchise.
While I agree with your take on copyright law, your argument doesn't have any leverage because despite your claim that Nintendo being in the moral wrong in taking down others ideas, where is the evidence? How can you claim an authoritative and absolute view on morality?
I urge you to search google if you have the time to write such a big response.
And if you need pointers of where look search when conventions were still being held.
I would say his message is correct but him saying it’s “illegal” is wrong
It’s more like companies no longer have as much a reason to compete with each other and are instead focused on trying to wring money out of users with the least amount of development time.
And for Nintendo it’s they are ruining their own public image via their ninja warriors.
Example retro gaming instead of giving people a way to play their old games in a “fair” affordable way. They instead send ninja lawyers and dmca requests.
@@ZeFoxii UA-cam must have deleted some of your comments because your message isn't making any sense