Copyright Protection & Trademarks

[Danny]

General discussion on copyright protection and trademarks, whether how silly or stupid they can be, or just questions in general.

First, before you post in this thread, please acknowledge the differences between a Copyright and a Trademark. I'm not going to do any explaining for you, but here's some links to help you out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

[onpon4]

My position on copyright is pretty simple: it's unjust and should be abolished. Automatic copyright (as required by the Berne Convention) is even worse. Copyright that lasts until 50 years after the author's death (also required by the Berne Convension) is even worse.

I don't think a monetary incentive is needed to encourage creation of works; artists (good ones, at least) tend to make art for the love of what they do, not for money. Also, copyright isn't really an incentive for creation today anyway; it's more of an incentive for publishers to propagate works, something far less valuable. The benefits of copyright are easily outweighed today by the horrible injustice of telling people that they are not allowed to make new copies of these works.

Trademarks, being totally different, warrant a different opinion: I think the cause of preventing confusion is a worthwhile cause, so trademarks (being limited in scope as they are) are perfectly fine. It might be a worthwhile improvement to require trademark holders to periodically demonstrate that the trademark isn't genericized, though.

[Danny]

I feel copyrights are only in place not for protection but so content creators and companies can feel more empowered to slap a label onto their product or business.

Copyrights were fairly useful back when we still had major inventors and patents were still being tossed around (see: the 40's), but since we've established, created, and worked our way to create a considerably large amount of products for public consumerism, it's way too easy for somebody to take your idea and make it their own, even bypassing currently existing copyright laws. They're way too strict on how they establish copyright laws and their following punishments, and what's even worse is that it completely eliminates free speech should something come up. A good example of this being several videos related to the GOP and DNC were removed for copyright infringement on YouTube, but they were either news/indie journalist broadcasts, talk shows, or any other video related to them. Not all of them were removed, clearly, but the ones that weren't were being published by the bigger companies or more popular users, and those are the ones that usually receive attention from the media.

[onpon4]

Copyrights were fairly useful back when we still had major inventors and patents were still being tossed around (see: the 40's), but since we've established, created, and worked our way to create a considerably large amount of products for public consumerism, it's way too easy for somebody to take your idea and make it their own, even bypassing currently existing copyright laws.

Copyright has nothing to do with patents or ideas. Copyright covers specific works (e.g. a book, play, movie, or computer program). Only patents cover ideas. Whether patents are a good idea is a whole other discussion, but one thing I can say with confidence is that software idea patents are a disaster and must all be revoked (and future software idea patents must be rejected).

[Danny]

Copyrights were fairly useful back when we still had major inventors and patents were still being tossed around (see: the 40's), but since we've established, created, and worked our way to create a considerably large amount of products for public consumerism, it's way too easy for somebody to take your idea and make it their own, even bypassing currently existing copyright laws.

Copyright has nothing to do with patents or ideas. Copyright covers specific works (e.g. a book, play, movie, or computer program). Only patents cover ideas. Whether patents are a good idea is a whole other discussion, but one thing I can say with confidence is that software idea patents are a disaster and must all be revoked (and future software idea patents must be rejected).

I know the difference between copyrights and patents. Typically, when someone issued a patent for their idea, and when it came to light (and was actually created), the existence of that item was copyrighted.

[onpon4]

I know the difference between copyrights and patents. Typically, when someone issued a patent for their idea, and when it came to light (and was actually created), the existence of that item was copyrighted.

What, the description of the patent? I guess that might be copyrighted, but this has absolutely nothing to do with either the patent or its enforcement. Assuming the patent description is copyrighted, you can just write a new description of the same thing (and if that's not possible, it by definition cannot be copyrighted).

[aero]

I'm a fan of copyleft.

[onpon4]

Eh, copyleft is important as long as we have copyright, but I think we would all be better off without copyright, even though it means the loss of copyleft. (This is one of the many, many things I disagree with RMS on.) So I don't know if I myself would call myself a fan of it. It's more like a necessary strategic compromise in the current system.

[Artemis008]

I think that after the product is completely unavailable it should be public domain (See FE 1-5). Being sued by company that no longer exist is also illogical (See THQ).

[mechamind]

Trademark is fine as long as the counter threat laws still exist.

Copyright has obviously gotten out of hand if people are pushing for laws against any photography whatsoever. You couldn't even take a picture of someone in front of a loaded bookshelf. I'm becoming a fan of other licensing.

[bossedit8]

Relative to copyrights, in YouTube there's a thing called Content ID which the holder of the contents have all their rights to any videos that are by everyone else can have either put ads in their videos, remove audio, videomaterial and even take down that video on specific countries. I know that they have their rights to do it but it's also annoying how you can't even use that music/video originally as of how it should be unless editing is involved or just remove that portion of the video in its entirely. Also if you want to have a video without having it 3rd partied aka Content IDed and it happens anyway (especially multiple times even it has been edited) it slows down the uploader a lot since you have to edit portion of the video, save up and export it, upload it and all that.

[Danny]

It's all about the money.

[onpon4]

Content ID is not a part of copyright. It's an entirely voluntary addition by Google. The only thing a video sharing site like YouTube is requried by U.S. copyright law to do is either accept responsibility for any copyright infringement or censor any user-created content that another person claims infringes their copyright in accordance with the DMCA. Everything YouTube does for the copyright industry is way beyond that requirement.

[Quantumenace]

Dammit Nintendo...

Metroid 2 fan remake finally released, quickly hit with copyright claims

"The unapproved use of Nintendo’s intellectual property can weaken our ability to protect and preserve it"

Right, right. Apparently there's this myth that copyright stops being valid if you don't attack "infringers". That may apply to trademark, but not copyright.

"Intellectual property" is problematic as a concept; it's unfortunate that copyright was allowed to be couched like this. Originally copyright was stated as a "temporary monopoly" on distribution, but now the claim is that an idea is something that can be exclusively "owned" forever (so long as the copyright lobby keeps getting it extended).

It's infuriating that all these companies keep wasting money on these lawyers that do nothing but spit in the eye of the fanbase, especially since they keep going after Youtube videos (which, by definition, CANNOT CONSTITUTE a copy of a video game!) I'm tempted to only buy games second-hand at this rate.

[Shadow Yoshi]

I don't think Nintendo meant at all that they would lose their trademarks. That's not what I took from it, at least.

My perspective is that Nintendo simply wants to protect the image of their ideas and goes really far to do that. Taking down projects like Super Hornio Brothers makes sense - if I could help it, I wouldn't want somebody making a pornographic parody of my ideas either! Taking down projects like this, Super Mario Bros. X, etc. seems a little excessive, but I do respect their desire to be the only ones behind the development and expansion of their ideas.

[Murphmario]

They also shut down a Pokemon fan game recently, though the download for it wasn't working anyways.

Seriously, companies should start respecting their fans and the impressive work they can do, with the exception of if said work is being sold (like a bootleg game for example).

[Shadow Yoshi]

It's not that they don't respect their fans; I think it's more that their fans are making things that are attracting a lot of attention and don't exactly fit the image of what they want their IP to be.

Also, sometimes things (like the SMBX download, for example) get DMCA complaints that look like they're from Nintendo but are actually fake.

[aero]

Seriously, companies should start respecting their fans and the impressive work they can do, with the exception of if said work is being sold (like a bootleg game for example).

Nintendo is a corporation and in order for a corporation to stay alive it needs a healthy profit margin. Fan works are almost universally, though unintentionally, in competition with the source material. Why buy Mario Maker when you can play SMBX w/ Lua Lua y'know? Nintendo has every legal right to eliminate competition that directly infringes upon their IP, and it makes sense to do so if they want to keep producing games and consoles for people to consume. I don't understand why people think companies are out to get them without looking at why they make certain decisions that would seem to be unpopular.

[onpon4]

Nintendo is a corporation and in order for a corporation to stay alive it needs a healthy profit margin. Fan works are almost universally, though unintentionally, in competition with the source material. Why buy Mario Maker when you can play SMBX w/ Lua Lua y'know?

This is a total nonsense argument. Let's suppose that SMBX is better than Mario Maker (I don't know whether or not this is the case): it would then be like saying, "Why buy SPAM when you can buy fresh meat?" and suggesting that Hormel should have a right to ban fresh meat because of this. If Nintendo's games are really so pathetic that no one is willing to pay for them because a fan made something better, their problem isn't the fans, it's their own games' quality.

I doubt that this is really the case; I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their games' quality. Anyway, I think fangames generally escalate their profits even further. The same goes for unauthorized copying of the games they made. It's publicity for them, and it costs nothing more than a little potential business, maybe.

And a final point: the idea that fan works are "almost universally... in competition with the source material" is one I would dispute. If it's not straight-up a clone, it is not in direct competition. I think that only constitutes a small portion of fan games.

Nintendo has every legal right to eliminate competition

They do (with the exception of fair use). They shouldn't.

[aero]

This is a total nonsense argument. Let's suppose that SMBX is better than Mario Maker (I don't know whether or not this is the case): it would then be like saying, "Why buy SPAM when you can buy fresh meat?" and suggesting that Hormel should have a right to ban fresh meat because of this. If Nintendo's games are really so pathetic that no one is willing to pay for them because a fan made something better, their problem isn't the fans, it's their own games' quality.

You're missing the point of my argument, and your meat analogy doesn't really follow. Nintendo owns Super Mario, Pokemon, LoZ, and all the rest and when someone makes a fan game without Nintendo's permission, that game will be competing against Nintendo's games and hurting their sales in an unfair way because it's their product to begin with. Furthermore I don't think it's fair to assume quality based on a fan game's successes or Nintendo's lost revenue because of the fan game due to the very fact people that are playing the fan game enjoy what Nintendo makes, and want to expand on it in their own way but unintentionally harm Nintendo. Now there's certainly better ways of going about things than shutting down fan creativity, and that is to encourage it on Nintendo's own terms as they are doing now with Mario Maker. I would imagine Nintendo has a Mario Kart game in the works with a track editor to bring back in the people modding MKWii and what not. That's how it's supposed to work, and it's completely up to Nintendo how they run their business and manage their property.

I doubt that this is really the case; I think Nintendo is doing just fine with their games' quality. Anyway, I think fangames generally escalate their profits even further. The same goes for unauthorized copying of the games they made. It's publicity for them, and it costs nothing more than a little potential business, maybe.

You could make the case that fan games increase profits because they serve as free advertising, and promote brand loyalty, however this does not change that the games are still in competition with Nintendo's and will cause undue harm. Nintendo is not the only company these laws apply to so for brands where quality assurance, public image, and stuff like that are vital these protections are vital for a company to use to defend their brand. Nintendo is kind of like that in a way due to how selective the titles are for their consoles, and their image as a family/child friendly company. I'm not saying any of these fan games that are being made are threatening Nintendo's image just to be clear, it's just to explain the need for a company to exercise their rights to defend their products from undue harm, and maintain profits where they should be based on business decisions and not illegitimate outside influences.

And a final point: the idea that fan works are "almost universally... in competition with the source material" is one I would dispute. If it's not straight-up a clone, it is not in direct competition. I think that only constitutes a small portion of fan games.

A fan game does not have to be a clone to be in competition with the source material, it just has to contain the source material. If someone has an option of buying a Nintendo game, or playing a fan's creation, that is when competition arises because a person chooses whom to spend their money and time playing on.

Nintendo has every legal right to eliminate competition

They do (with the exception of fair use). They shouldn't.

I agree, but that's neither ours decision to make.