Nintendo is complaining about a ROM store owner they sued missing a $50 payment

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,301   +2,550
I don't know. What is the point of copyright laws that protect Nintendos right to not distribute decades old material that would've fallen into public domain, again, literally decades ago if the laws were not periodically updated to require tax payers to continue to finance enforcement of said protection?

I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
I'm having a hard time figuring out why so many people not only defend copyright law as it stands but even wants to side with a corporation to want even more punitive punishment.

What's next? Mandatory jail sentences? Forced labor? Life sentence? Death Penalty for sharing roms?

Even if you support these stupid laws it seems to me that the judicial system did it's job for once and enforced a reasonable sentence: pay 50 bucks per week to Nintendo.
 

jpuroila

Posts: 389   +236
That guy should really start to get a job and stop stealing from others. No matter how people hate Nintendo,that guy is the one to blame in the story. The 50 per month for thousands of years penalty is too forgiving not to mention our money is becoming less and less valuable every year.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a corporate shill or willfully ignorant. Also, with all the DMCA abuse Nintendo does, their IP should be forfeit.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 993   +1,437
Actually Nintendo sell many retro games, and you can use second hand market to buy them from other people, so don't talk like that.
This is a totally dishonest comparison. The selection of retro games Nintendo bothers to bring out of mothballs is atomic in scale to their actual library. Without piracy hundreds of games would be lost to history.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
I think the issue is, these games are no longer manufactured and aren't available to purchase on digital platforms to play. Personally this the biggest bs from Nintendo. I could understand maybe a Dev getting annoyed perhaps but seriously how can Nintendo moan about ROM sites when they don't offer an alternative.
He also sold Switch games. Something this article fails to include.

And he himself proposed and agreed to the fee.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
Copyright infringement isn't theft. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a corporate shill or willfully ignorant. Also, with all the DMCA abuse Nintendo does, their IP should be forfeit.
What do you call making money from someone else's content? Business? What if the content comprised currently available offerings.

I don't mind ROM sites in general but this guy was brazen.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,301   +2,550
Copyright infringement isn't theft. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a corporate shill or willfully ignorant. Also, with all the DMCA abuse Nintendo does, their IP should be forfeit.
People never seem to understand that there are extremely good reasons we don't call copyright infringement "theft" but most companies like to continue making the flawed "theft" analogy because people react strongly to it.

But if anyone needs a reminder (And yes, many of you do) theft means obtaining something that nobody else can then subsequently obtain. If there's replication of an item, then it's copyright infringement because well, that's what we call it: you have no rights to create and distribute copies.

And yes the reason we call these things differently and make a legal distinction is because distributing copies never actually removes the ability from the rights holder to distribute their own legitimate copies while theft does exactly that. The crime has different implications and different problems for the rights holder and yes: far lesser for copyright infringement than outright theft.
 

tellmewhy

Posts: 121   +58
If that site had 800$ income per month from the roms and those games are not for sell anymore then the company has practically zero damages.

When the planet has 8 billions and the top 1% of the best games sell around 1 – 10 million copies practically there is NO overlap (10 mil = 0.12% of the world population), so again in practice there are NO damages from ANY copyright infringement of any game!

But not only there are no damages there is and PROFIT for the company because of the free advertisement and the network effects. The probability someone buys a Switch and talk to their friends about the product if in the past had play rom emulators it’s many magnitude higher from someone who hasn’t play with rom emulators.

So why the court gave those penalties? Well because it’s intent was not to give an analog penalty but to give a TORTURE so that way to prevent the reappearance of the same “crime” by stimulating fear.

Of course that practice has it’s root to the medieval age and most modern constitutions are direct against the practice of torture. So the decision of the court (and that particular law in which had based) is against the constitution.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
If that site had 800$ income per month from the roms and those games are not for sell anymore then the company has practically zero damages.

When the planet has 8 billions and the top 1% of the best games sell around 1 – 10 million copies practically there is NO overlap (10 mil = 0.12% of the world population), so again in practice there are NO damages from ANY copyright infringement of any game!

But not only there are no damages there is and PROFIT for the company because of the free advertisement and the network effects. The probability someone buys a Switch and talk to their friends about the product if in the past had play rom emulators it’s many magnitude higher from someone who hasn’t play with rom emulators.

So why the court gave those penalties? Well because it’s intent was not to give an analog penalty but to give a TORTURE so that way to prevent the reappearance of the same “crime” by stimulating fear.

Of course that practice has it’s root to the medieval age and most modern constitutions are direct against the practice of torture. So the decision of the court (and that particular law in which had based) is against the constitution.
He hosted Switch games that are very much still for sale
 

eforce

Posts: 567   +712
Did you even read the article? Nintendo themselves say it is to make an example him, of which it is their right as a company. If he isn't paying up then what's the point in copyright laws?

The point of copyright laws is to give lazy people protection from competition.
 

Axil00

Posts: 82   +96
What do you call making money from someone else's content? Business? What if the content comprised currently available offerings.
[/QUOTE]
it's called "copyright infringement" or some other violation of IP law.
The reason it is referred to as theft is to coerce an uninformed public to continue to expand and finance the definition application and enforcement of these laws.

I am for patents/copyrights/etc. Im not for them existing in perpetuity in the broadest possible way.

People seem to forget that these "rights" are entirely manufactured by the government(s) these protections exist in.

Before the concept of a patent existed people still found ways to profit from their ideas. If the system existed in the past as it exists today you'd be paying a licensing fee every time you touched one of copyrighted letters on your input device of choice.
I don't mind ROM sites in general but this guy was brazen.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
it's called "copyright infringement" or some other violation of IP law.
The reason it is referred to as theft is to coerce an uninformed public to continue to expand and finance the definition application and enforcement of these laws.

I am for patents/copyrights/etc. Im not for them existing in perpetuity in the broadest possible way.

People seem to forget that these "rights" are entirely manufactured by the government(s) these protections exist in.

Before the concept of a patent existed people still found ways to profit from their ideas. If the system existed in the past as it exists today you'd be paying a licensing fee every time you touched one of copyrighted letters on your input device of choice.
[/QUOTE]
So you defend this person's right to distribute Switch games for profit? That he obtained without paying money for?
 

DrSuess

Posts: 149   +140
Really? Nintendo really needs 50 bucks?

Or do the bastards just want to throw this guy in jail to make an example out of him?

They won, site is gone, guy's life is probably ruined for good at least financially Nintendo: you can shut up now.
They are doing it for legal reasons, in some jurisdictions if you don't notify the court of a default the lack of notification may be interpreted as the debt is being forgiven.

As for the guys life being ruined he probably should have stopped selling ROM copies when he received the first cease and desist demand letter, had he done that he would have never ended up with a tiny financial judgement against him.
 

DrSuess

Posts: 149   +140
So you defend this person's right to distribute Switch games for profit? That he obtained without paying money for?

I think all people see is a large corporation versus a little guy, even though the little guy is clearly in the wrong. People can't come along and profit from someone else's work while completely cutting out the work's creator with respect to both credit and finance.
 

Axil00

Posts: 82   +96
it's called "copyright infringement" or some other violation of IP law.
The reason it is referred to as theft is to coerce an uninformed public to continue to expand and finance the definition application and enforcement of these laws.

I am for patents/copyrights/etc. Im not for them existing in perpetuity in the broadest possible way.

People seem to forget that these "rights" are entirely manufactured by the government(s) these protections exist in.

Before the concept of a patent existed people still found ways to profit from their ideas. If the system existed in the past as it exists today you'd be paying a licensing fee every time you touched one of copyrighted letters on your input device of choice.
So you defend this person's right to distribute Switch games for profit? That he obtained without paying money for?

No. He has no such right, obviously. I defend my position that when Nintendo exercises its legal rights as in this case it's perfectly acceptable for the public to punish them by exercising thier rights.

Using the comments section of news articles to point out the bad behavior of said company may not be super effective but unfortunately probably accomplishes more than writing a letter to your congressman detailing your concerns.

Personally I go out of my way to make sure Nintendo is not rewarded by my dollar, that doesn't mean I would never purchase a Nintendo Product it just means that I'll utilize whatever legal means I have to make sure that purchase benefits them as little as possible.

Conversely companies that don't waste tax payer money sueing people who are already entirely dependent on the tax payer safety net, I try to reward and have no problems paying for extra fluff like cosmetic dlc, etc.

Personally it baffles me how easy it is to turn "cancel culture" against an individual, but monolithic multi billion dollar companies are the ones we need to treat with kid gloves?
 
I think Nintendo is grossly exaggerating the impact these sites have on their business. Realistically I blame America's broken copyright system and Nintendos blatant attempts to profit off of roms at any corner. They wonder how these sites draw so many, and while many play these games on pc, many more actually play on Nintendo hardware, they simply can't access them anywhere else. Prime example, Super Mario RPG has yet to be available on current Nintendo hardware.

It's not the classic game collection they were concerned about. It's the fact he was 1. charging customers for premium access, and 2. he was pirating Switch games. There are numerous sites that host classic ROMs for free. Nintendo only cared about the Switch games. Notice how there was only 49 counts of copyright infringement? How many ROM sotes do you know that only have 49 ROMs? No, this was about current gen games, not 30-year-old NES games.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
Really? Nintendo really needs 50 bucks?

Or do the bastards just want to throw this guy in jail to make an example out of him?

They won, site is gone, guy's life is probably ruined for good at least financially Nintendo: you can shut up now.
The site is not gone for good. The guy previously said he'll start it again without Nintendo content. He also was the one who proposed and agreed to the monthly fee. Nintendo doesn't need the money but it's fairly clear the guy has no intention of honouring the deal.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
Nintendo's legal team are acting like petulant children. Someone needs to put them in their place..
Lol. Another one who's defending someone illegally distributing Switch games for profit. Don't blame you actually. Techspot failed to mention that newer Nintendo games like Switch releases were also available. Techspot wrote this in such a way that most readers might think that the site only hosted ROMs from the pre-Wii era.
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
No. He has no such right, obviously. I defend my position that when Nintendo exercises its legal rights as in this case it's perfectly acceptable for the public to punish them by exercising thier rights.

Using the comments section of news articles to point out the bad behavior of said company may not be super effective but unfortunately probably accomplishes more than writing a letter to your congressman detailing your concerns.

Personally I go out of my way to make sure Nintendo is not rewarded by my dollar, that doesn't mean I would never purchase a Nintendo Product it just means that I'll utilize whatever legal means I have to make sure that purchase benefits them as little as possible.

Conversely companies that don't waste tax payer money sueing people who are already entirely dependent on the tax payer safety net, I try to reward and have no problems paying for extra fluff like cosmetic dlc, etc.

Personally it baffles me how easy it is to turn "cancel culture" against an individual, but monolithic multi billion dollar companies are the ones we need to treat with kid gloves?
No. He has no such right, obviously. I defend my position that when Nintendo exercises its legal rights as in this case it's perfectly acceptable for the public to punish them by exercising thier rights.

Using the comments section of news articles to point out the bad behavior of said company may not be super effective but unfortunately probably accomplishes more than writing a letter to your congressman detailing your concerns.

Personally I go out of my way to make sure Nintendo is not rewarded by my dollar, that doesn't mean I would never purchase a Nintendo Product it just means that I'll utilize whatever legal means I have to make sure that purchase benefits them as little as possible.

Conversely companies that don't waste tax payer money sueing people who are already entirely dependent on the tax payer safety net, I try to reward and have no problems paying for extra fluff like cosmetic dlc, etc.

Personally it baffles me how easy it is to turn "cancel culture" against an individual, but monolithic multi billion dollar companies are the ones we need to treat with kid gloves?
This guy is far from being cancelled. Depending on how it's been reported, most commenters side with him rather than Nintendo.

Fact is, he was brazenly profiting from newer Nintendo releases. Other ROM sites focus on abandonware - I have no beef with them and do use them too.

I really wonder if the reaction to this article would be the same if Sony or Microsoft were taking action for distributing Xbox One/X and PS4/5 games.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 656   +417
Lol. Another one who's defending someone illegally distributing Switch games for profit.
No, I'm not supporting blatant piracy. But I'm also not supporting hounding someone into homelessness either in a petty and pathetic attempt to "make an example" of them. Nintendo has the victory. If that guy was smart he'd declare bankruptcy and never look at owning a website again.. But then again he hosted Switch ROMs on a site located in the United States, how smart could he be...
 

JohnnyBlazeon

Posts: 17   +10
What you call making $50 or $60 a month profiting? I mean technically sure, but really? I make more than that in my sleep every night...
Where did you get 50/60 a month? From this article (because it's not mentioned here at all)?
Gosh - Read a bit more about it in their original article. It's more.

Goes to show how a leading headline and sub can misguide readers.

Storman has filed for a motion of reconsideration and for the penalties to be scrapped. And he's already expressed a wish to restart the site.

Supporting him right now is supporting blatant piracy. Then again, maybe I've been incredibly silly in paying for games after turning away from the warez sites of the past