I am curious if Section 108 of the Copyright law actually can save those classic Nintendo games? Though I'm hoping it allows the same for infringing Nintendo game copies too, just in case that's generally the only thing left when it comes to old Nintendo games itself. I partly say this because I found this strange document about revising 108: https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf (look at page 2 where they talk about c.). Though I'm probably misreading it.
If Nintendo tried to expand the copyright extension, then I think they would truly be the Disney of video gaming. It's likely the one thing left keeping them away from truly being such a thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to do such an awful thing.
Well, I guess it's Nintendo then likely.
I probably said this at least once before, I wouldn't be very surprised if Nintendo tried to extend Copyright.
As someone already said on here, there is a big chance that it may not have been actual Nintendo doing this to him. Of course Nintendo does usually like to be Nintendo, but I still think it's best to properly update this article about that Twitter thread.
It's very obvious that many works being stuck under copyright for over 60 years is bad, as it clearly damages the purpose of Copyright. I hate that it feels so "hard" for laws around the world to start fixing it by <i>reducing</i> it's term back down, even by just 10 years (both after death and fixed years).
Reducing it would automatically generate more amazing works into public domain, but such move to reduce the term would likely receive backlashes, usually more likely, by many corporations, which depends how far it's reduced. Sadly the copyright law rulers would likely pander to them, which is the problem here I think.
I feel that if there were a lot of protest around it (including physical protests) calling out the extensions with criticism by properly explaining that current copyright is unconstitutional, with good evidence, and properly pressure congress to not listen to corporations fighting against that fact and reducing copyright term, then maybe the chance of reducing copyright would be higher.
Physical copies of software is still physical as it's made up of magnets, like how a painting is made up of some other minerals. Copyright law seems to recognize that it's possible for people to own particular copies of Copyrighted content and such law uses the RAM doctrine for software.
An enforceable contract limiting the physical product would then likely effect the "ownership" element of the limitation, but in the end the issue is due to a contract having power over a physical product that was given away after payment, which I wonder can truly be enforceable.
If I recall right, Copyright law seems to recognize that you can actually own copies of I think lawful copyrighted software. There already is copyright limitations in countries that allow users to properly copy software in order to run it.
You might actually be right actually. If this horrible term has no statement in Copyright law, then yeah. I do wonder if contract law can really control physical lawful stuff sold (regardless of "not sold" claim or not) because of so, then that law is going to need to be fixed.
Though if such clauses are unenforceable, don't they lose the right to sue people over "breach of contract" too, over unenforceable terms? If they can still sue you over such terms, it's kinda as bad.
If I pay for one single payment of a fee for a lawful software (usually when physical), then I deserve to get property rights over it and that every term of a contract trying to control it needs to be held as null and void. I even heard that terms like that just can't be lawful, but of course I am skeptical over that.
I think that people should be allowed to get around copy protection of lawful works for any lawful purchase as it doesn't make any sense and breaks the balance between Copyright limitations and consumers. If I for example wanted to bypass Copyright protection of a PS3 game in order to run it on an emulator, I should get that right.
And while I stand with what I said here a lot, why do we even need DMCA after? Copyright piracy is already illegal as Copyright law is still a thing without DMCA, and the same goes for other laws outside of DMCA. So why do we even need DMCA still? Extra punishment is the only thing I can see coming out of it if we still have DMCA after fixing it. I think the purpose of DMCA was to add extra, immoral, restrictions to block a lot of lawful stuff beyond it.
I don't know if this was mentioned on here or not, but the pirated games not only offer the possibility of superior quality, but it's also possible to preserve the actual games alone. Nintendo doesn't let people actually buy a lot of their old N64 games and only offers it to an indefinite rental system that ends whenever Nintendo pulls the plug to it.
I honestly hope people don't forget the number one problem here, so I wanted to mention it here. Nintendo even once offered the Super Mario 3D All-Stars, and they gave the middle finger to consumers by no longer offering it even digitally likely showing they hate the idea of consumers actually being able to preserve these games after a one time payment. If Nintendo keeps acting like this, then I will always probably find certain cases of "piracy" that already happened to their games morally justified alone and that Nintendo is solely more responsible for why some people illegally downloaded Nintendo ROMs.
I really wish a lot of people would start protesting by calling out how corrupt our Copyrights is today alone. There are lots of people who are like defenders of certain infringing cases, but I would like to see people directly call out how ridiculous Copyright laws have went and actually try to properly change them for the better, if they aren't doing that.
It's really ironic that this is a country that is supposed to be way more about basic rights, possibly than many other countries, and yet it ends up being nearly the complete opposite (obviously not completely) with many poor decisions and/or lack of specific decisions. Certain companies taking away a basic specific property right is one of those examples.
It used to be better too: for example, we didn't ban many flavored beer, we moderated it. Today: We ban most flavored vaping because fear. If today was back then, we would of likely banned the rest of the flavored beer. So fear-based belief that fuels states acting like this so fast, especially on ridiculous fear just shows how much of a dangerous path we failed to stay away.
Maybe I'm going a bit crazy, but I'm just infuriated how easy it is to lose even a simple right like this due to a simple fear-based argument made by rich companies so fast.
I think I intended that "legally protected speech" is speech that isn't breaking the law. I was also saying that censorship is not always equal to the first amendment being violated.
Though granted, sometimes it could be debatable. (e.g. Twitter censoring any lawful political speech in favor of particular side).
Then why is it called "censorship" whenever there is usual talks about specific regional version of games blocking specific content then? I don't rely on popular opinion a lot, but from a common perspective and how one of the definitions out there for "censorship" does not specifically say anything that limits the definition of censorship to lawful speech violated, I believe it might be a bit fair to ask this question.
I think I was mainly trying to point out that the argument the person made is a bit dangerous, which can be so dangerously broad.
I'm not trying to say that "censorship" is always bad. Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous and basically suggests that censorship probably doesn't even exist.
Regardless if constitutional rights are violated or not, if I was banned from protesting "Trump is a loser." on the street outside, but not from swinging it around inside my house, then by the one 'logic', I am not being censored just because I can still say it in my house. Yet, I'm restricted from stating it outside and can barely spread the message to other people.
Going back to the political opinion debate, I do think it can sometimes be morally debatable outside of current law when it comes to censorship in general regarding one-sided political sides in lawful popular media websites.
Re: Section 108
Disclaimer, I didn't fully read the document and just found it. It's probably not fully about revising it.
Section 108
I am curious if Section 108 of the Copyright law actually can save those classic Nintendo games? Though I'm hoping it allows the same for infringing Nintendo game copies too, just in case that's generally the only thing left when it comes to old Nintendo games itself. I partly say this because I found this strange document about revising 108: https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf (look at page 2 where they talk about c.). Though I'm probably misreading it.
I also heard a case that contract law prevented some kind of public domain information from being reproduced, which is a big yikes in general. https://www.rcfp.org/license-can-prohibit-reproduction-public-domain-data/
Copyright Expanding?
If Nintendo tried to expand the copyright extension, then I think they would truly be the Disney of video gaming. It's likely the one thing left keeping them away from truly being such a thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to do such an awful thing.
(untitled comment)
Well, I guess it's Nintendo then likely.
I probably said this at least once before, I wouldn't be very surprised if Nintendo tried to extend Copyright.
Possible Impersonator
As someone already said on here, there is a big chance that it may not have been actual Nintendo doing this to him. Of course Nintendo does usually like to be Nintendo, but I still think it's best to properly update this article about that Twitter thread.
https://twitter.com/SolScribbles/status/1489417889232916480
One Hope I Wondered...
It's very obvious that many works being stuck under copyright for over 60 years is bad, as it clearly damages the purpose of Copyright. I hate that it feels so "hard" for laws around the world to start fixing it by <i>reducing</i> it's term back down, even by just 10 years (both after death and fixed years).
Reducing it would automatically generate more amazing works into public domain, but such move to reduce the term would likely receive backlashes, usually more likely, by many corporations, which depends how far it's reduced. Sadly the copyright law rulers would likely pander to them, which is the problem here I think.
I feel that if there were a lot of protest around it (including physical protests) calling out the extensions with criticism by properly explaining that current copyright is unconstitutional, with good evidence, and properly pressure congress to not listen to corporations fighting against that fact and reducing copyright term, then maybe the chance of reducing copyright would be higher.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal
Yeah that's what I meant I mean.
Physical copies of software is still physical as it's made up of magnets, like how a painting is made up of some other minerals. Copyright law seems to recognize that it's possible for people to own particular copies of Copyrighted content and such law uses the RAM doctrine for software.
An enforceable contract limiting the physical product would then likely effect the "ownership" element of the limitation, but in the end the issue is due to a contract having power over a physical product that was given away after payment, which I wonder can truly be enforceable.
Re: Re: Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal
If I recall right, Copyright law seems to recognize that you can actually own copies of I think lawful copyrighted software. There already is copyright limitations in countries that allow users to properly copy software in order to run it.
Re: What does this have to copyright?
You might actually be right actually. If this horrible term has no statement in Copyright law, then yeah. I do wonder if contract law can really control physical lawful stuff sold (regardless of "not sold" claim or not) because of so, then that law is going to need to be fixed.
Re:
Though if such clauses are unenforceable, don't they lose the right to sue people over "breach of contract" too, over unenforceable terms? If they can still sue you over such terms, it's kinda as bad.
Re: Re: Better I Think, But Why Not Abolish It?
Oh right I guess I forgot that DMCA isn't just about bypassing copyright protection of physical stuff you own. My bad. Haha
Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal
If I pay for one single payment of a fee for a lawful software (usually when physical), then I deserve to get property rights over it and that every term of a contract trying to control it needs to be held as null and void. I even heard that terms like that just can't be lawful, but of course I am skeptical over that.
I remember finding this but I don't see much discussion about it outside of it: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwi se-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda
Better I Think, But Why Not Abolish It?
I think that people should be allowed to get around copy protection of lawful works for any lawful purchase as it doesn't make any sense and breaks the balance between Copyright limitations and consumers. If I for example wanted to bypass Copyright protection of a PS3 game in order to run it on an emulator, I should get that right.
And while I stand with what I said here a lot, why do we even need DMCA after? Copyright piracy is already illegal as Copyright law is still a thing without DMCA, and the same goes for other laws outside of DMCA. So why do we even need DMCA still? Extra punishment is the only thing I can see coming out of it if we still have DMCA after fixing it. I think the purpose of DMCA was to add extra, immoral, restrictions to block a lot of lawful stuff beyond it.
The Problem Is Not Being Able to Buy Nintendo Games
I don't know if this was mentioned on here or not, but the pirated games not only offer the possibility of superior quality, but it's also possible to preserve the actual games alone. Nintendo doesn't let people actually buy a lot of their old N64 games and only offers it to an indefinite rental system that ends whenever Nintendo pulls the plug to it.
I honestly hope people don't forget the number one problem here, so I wanted to mention it here. Nintendo even once offered the Super Mario 3D All-Stars, and they gave the middle finger to consumers by no longer offering it even digitally likely showing they hate the idea of consumers actually being able to preserve these games after a one time payment. If Nintendo keeps acting like this, then I will always probably find certain cases of "piracy" that already happened to their games morally justified alone and that Nintendo is solely more responsible for why some people illegally downloaded Nintendo ROMs.
Infuriating
I really wish a lot of people would start protesting by calling out how corrupt our Copyrights is today alone. There are lots of people who are like defenders of certain infringing cases, but I would like to see people directly call out how ridiculous Copyright laws have went and actually try to properly change them for the better, if they aren't doing that.
"and throughout the world"
Is it even possible for the court to enforce that restriction outside of the United States? Part of the document said this:
"any of the following activities in the United States of America and throughout the world:". Note I had to adjust the quote but it's based off here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.758131/gov.uscourts.cacd.758131.88.0.pdf
I remember hearing that countries can apply restrictions to outside countries, but I am not sure if this is based off the same thing.
What Free Country?
It's really ironic that this is a country that is supposed to be way more about basic rights, possibly than many other countries, and yet it ends up being nearly the complete opposite (obviously not completely) with many poor decisions and/or lack of specific decisions. Certain companies taking away a basic specific property right is one of those examples.
It used to be better too: for example, we didn't ban many flavored beer, we moderated it. Today: We ban most flavored vaping because fear. If today was back then, we would of likely banned the rest of the flavored beer. So fear-based belief that fuels states acting like this so fast, especially on ridiculous fear just shows how much of a dangerous path we failed to stay away.
Maybe I'm going a bit crazy, but I'm just infuriated how easy it is to lose even a simple right like this due to a simple fear-based argument made by rich companies so fast.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I intended that "legally protected speech" is speech that isn't breaking the law. I was also saying that censorship is not always equal to the first amendment being violated.
Though granted, sometimes it could be debatable. (e.g. Twitter censoring any lawful political speech in favor of particular side).
Re:
Then why is it called "censorship" whenever there is usual talks about specific regional version of games blocking specific content then? I don't rely on popular opinion a lot, but from a common perspective and how one of the definitions out there for "censorship" does not specifically say anything that limits the definition of censorship to lawful speech violated, I believe it might be a bit fair to ask this question.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I was mainly trying to point out that the argument the person made is a bit dangerous, which can be so dangerously broad.
I'm not trying to say that "censorship" is always bad. Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous and basically suggests that censorship probably doesn't even exist.
Regardless if constitutional rights are violated or not, if I was banned from protesting "Trump is a loser." on the street outside, but not from swinging it around inside my house, then by the one 'logic', I am not being censored just because I can still say it in my house. Yet, I'm restricted from stating it outside and can barely spread the message to other people.
Going back to the political opinion debate, I do think it can sometimes be morally debatable outside of current law when it comes to censorship in general regarding one-sided political sides in lawful popular media websites.
Hope I'm being more clear here.
More comments from Space5000 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Space5000.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt