Login

Nintendo begins to take down music videos on YouTube containing songs from Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda, and Mario Kart Wii


Categories: General News
Tags: mario-kart

Comments

Top Rated Comment
mystikoi
Tue Dec 08 20 11:42am
Rating: 10 (Updated 1 time)

I’ve had it with the tired, bootlicking “Nintendo is just protecting their IP and they have the legal right to do this” statements. They do not need to do all the garbage that they have been doing. IP protection and the fact that their actions aren’t against the law doesn’t mean it isn’t crappy behavior. If they want a piece of the pie themselves from people listening to their game OSTs, they should put them up on Spotify and Apple Music like Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, and plenty of other game companies have done. And no, having a soundtrack player in some games isn’t the same thing. Sometimes it feels like Nintendo is deliberately choosing to be backwards.

mystikoi
Tue Dec 08 20 11:42am
Rating: 10 (Updated 1 time)

I’ve had it with the tired, bootlicking “Nintendo is just protecting their IP and they have the legal right to do this” statements. They do not need to do all the garbage that they have been doing. IP protection and the fact that their actions aren’t against the law doesn’t mean it isn’t crappy behavior. If they want a piece of the pie themselves from people listening to their game OSTs, they should put them up on Spotify and Apple Music like Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, and plenty of other game companies have done. And no, having a soundtrack player in some games isn’t the same thing. Sometimes it feels like Nintendo is deliberately choosing to be backwards.

koopa_dk_fan
Tue Dec 08 20 12:34pm
Rating: 5

It's not bootlicking. It's reality. Nintendo has always been very touchy with their IPs even with Iwatta at charge (why people keep treating him like a god? seriously). And now everybody reacts like is the first time?

I don't like it but that's how they have always operated. This entitlement from Nintendo fans that want to do whatever they want and receive a hug from Miyamoto is ridiculous.

This entitlement from Nintendo fans that want to do whatever they want and receive a hug from Miyamoto is ridiculous

Exactly. It's mind-boggling that some fellows actually believe that by purporting themselves as fans they get free, perpetual and unalienable rights to everything Nintendo-related.

imperator karorusu
Tue Dec 08 20 09:17pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

Oh yeah, enforcing property rights is definitely crappy behavior. And understanding that these exist is something that only absolute bootlickers are able to pull off. Letting any unauthorized Joe use your music and get paid for it is the definition of being forwards.

Whenever you get robbed, don't call the police, just let it be; whenever someone trespasses on your property, don't kick them out, trespassers need to be happy too!

Who needs rights, after all, right?

get paid for it

None of GilvaSunner's videos are monetised.

Whenever you get robbed, don't call the police, just let it be; whenever someone trespasses on your property, don't kick them out, trespassers need to be happy too!

If I get robbed or someone breaks into my house I can pretty easily demonstrate how those things harm me.

What is the quantifiable harm being done to Nintendo when someone listens to a song that they don't even sell anywhere?

Property, intellectual or not, is something that, if the owner neglects to protect, can be lost. For example, if someone trespasses on property and occupies it without actual opposition from the legitimate owner, the trespasser may gain ownership through adverse possession.

The same may theoretically happen to intellectual properties; in fact, Nintendo itself won the fabled Donkey Kong lawsuit by proving that Universal itself had forfeited its rights to the King Kong IP prior to that (therefore, they sued in bad faith and lost).

In other words, a lot of harm could be done if Nintendo chose not to protect its creations. Say, if Nintendo allowed AM2R to go on, there would be a strong basis for any developer to make and release their own Metroid games and Nintendo would have its hands tied.

Property, intellectual or not, is something that, if the owner neglects to protect, can be lost.

That's true of some forms of intellectual property (like trademarks) but it's not true for all of them. Modern copyright (particularly in the United States) is impossible to lose no matter how neglected it is.

(You might want to look up the concept of "orphan works" where not only does the copyright holder do nothing to "protect" their ownership of that copyright but they cannot be located and are sometimes not even aware that they own it -- and despite all that they still retain that copyright for decades.)

Nintendo itself won the fabled Donkey Kong lawsuit by proving that Universal itself had forfeited its rights to the King Kong IP prior to that (therefore, they sued in bad faith and lost).

Let me stop you right there: Universal alleged trademark infringement on the King Kong trademark and lost mainly because it was determined the King Kong trademark had never been sold Universal in the first place.

Spoiler

Universal didn't forfeit anything. They held (and still hold) each and every one of the rights that they had purchased from Merian Cooper. It's just that those rights didn't include a trademark on the King Kong name.

Nintendo winning that case meant they could have a character with "Kong" in his name. It didn't suddenly make it legal for them to sell bootlegs of the original 1933 movie or include the real King Kong in their games lol.

So with all that in mind: What is the actual quantifiable harm being done to Nintendo when someone listens to a song that they don't even sell anywhere?

Yeah, I know; I simplified the case for the sake of a short comment though.

Other than that, I don't see what's your point, as letting anyone take advantage of your property without authorization is harmful, obviously. This isn't about revenue, it's about rights.

Other than that, I don't see what's your point, as letting anyone take advantage of your property without authorization is harmful, obviously.

If it's so obvious then it should be easy to answer the question.

Nintendo's copyright over their music is in no danger of being voided by there existing an unprosecuted rip of it on Youtube. And if it were then they've clearly already lost it because there's like a dozen copies of the Mario 64 OST on other channels that are still up.

What is the harm that 13 videos of the Dire Dire Docks theme causes Nintendo to suffer that is somehow remedied by the removal of just 1?

This isn't about revenue, it's about rights.

I don't recognise the right of corporations to bar the public from the possibility of legal access to music.

imperator karorusu
Fri Dec 11 20 03:09pm
(Updated 1 time)

I don't recognise the right of corporations to bar the public from the possibility of legal access to music.

OK pal, not that it matters, as rights aren't based off ill-informed opinions. I also think it would be cool if they made those tracks available, but that's up to them and only to them, not to random youtubers. It doesn't matter if the harm isn't "quantifiable" or the OSTs aren't being made available. By your logic, anyone would be able to pick off anything you own but don't put to use. Property rights exist for the better and are to be respected.

OK pal, not that it matters, as rights aren't based off ill-informed opinions.

I agree!

Although given that I'm not the one who apparently thinks there's no difference between intellectual property and physical property it's clearly not my opinion that's ill-informed here. Razz

It doesn't matter if the harm isn't "quantifiable" or the OSTs aren't being made available.

Of course it matters. Copyright might take a gajillion years to expire (thank you Disney lobbyists) but unlike property rights governing tangible goods it does eventually expire. That's because it benefits everyone as a whole when the public has access to information and to the arts.

If you can't provide a good reason for barring the public's access to intellectual property then you forfeit any moral right to that property.

By your logic, anyone would be able to pick off anything you own but don't put to use.

Only things that eventually pass into the public domain anyway. I hate to break it to you but you can't own ideas or expression the way you can own a car lmao.

imperator karorusu
Sat Dec 12 20 11:57am
(Updated 2 times)

Is that serious? Are you drunk or what, dude? Trying to compare works in public domain, whose original holders were physical people who've long been dead with IPs of say, 10 years ago is a mad, not to say dishonest comparison.

If you can't provide a good reason for barring the public's access to intellectual property then you forfeit any moral right to that property.

Yeah, you clearly aren't making any sense here. One of the very core concepts of property is that it can be "barred from public access", precisely because it's private. Now, it's not like Nintendo is trying to erase its OSTs from internet (they're just rightfully taking down unauthorized use), but if they so wanted, they could do it. There's no "good reason" requirement here. And that's has nothing to do any "moral right" BS.

casey
Mon Dec 14 20 05:01am
Rating: 1 (Updated 2 times)

Trying to compare works in public domain, whose original holders were physical people who've long been dead with IPs of say, 10 years ago is a mad, not to say dishonest comparison.

I hate to break it to you but most of the stuff currently in the public domain wasn't all that old when it first became public domain. The very first copyright law to ever exist provided that works made after 1710 went into the public domain after 14 years for if left alone. That was the way things worked for... oh about 200 years.

The push by corporations and corporate bootlickers to make it so that nothing will ever enter the public domain in our lifetimes is a comparably new experiment.

And as demonstrated by cases like this: a failed experiment.

Yeah, you clearly aren't making any sense here.

The understanding of the difference between a moral right and a legal one is basic enough that I honestly figured it didn't need to be explained. But OK.

Moral rights are rights that we have by virtue of being people.

Legal rights are rights that seek to protect moral rights by codifying them into law. When laws fail to do that (say because we granted a legal right that ultimately gets abused) we thus change those laws.

In a just society moral rights will always be the more important of the two and legal rights will always be altered to be more in line with the former.

Slavery was a legal right at one time after all.

Now, it's not like Nintendo is trying to erase its OSTs from internet (they're just rightfully taking down unauthorized use

If they're not providing any authorized use themselves then erasing their OSTs is exactly what they're trying to do. (They're just doing a very bad job of it lol.)

if they so wanted, they could do it.

You're talking "could"; I'm talking "should".

(It's unlikely they could either. The record industry spent more time and lot more money than Nintendo could even dream of trying to stop people from downloading music on the internet. Since I apparently need to state the obvious: This strategy didn't work out so well.)

The push by corporations and corporate bootlickers to make it so that nothing will ever enter the public domain in our lifetimes is a comparably new experiment.

And as demonstrated by cases like this: a failed experiment.

I have no idea what you're trying to state or prove here, but just to clarify, I was talking of things as they stand, not as they may or may not be in the uncertain future. As of now, Nintendo's OSTs aren't public domain. Thus, they're right in protecting their IPs. I don't know nor care whether Disney's lobbying on "Mickey Mouse Act" is questionable or not, but that is the current state of things, you liking it or not. And I can't say that in a world where DMCA and EU's Directive on Copyright are a thing, that copyright protection is a "failed experiment".

The understanding of the difference between a moral right and a legal one is...

Chill a bit, Professor. I was not denying morality as it stands; I was instead pointing out that there's no moral point to be proven for copyright holders to protect their claims. In your previous ramblings you stated that if Nintendo or anyone else failed to "provide a good reason" for enforcing their rights, they would "forfeit their moral right".

That's obviously bullcrap, as the only thing that matters is for the holder to prove their ownership. All that "good reason" talk is senseless, as it would be absurd to require the holder of any right a "reasoning" whenever he/she/it tried to enforce or protect said right (and before you jump, as most things in Law, exceptions may apply, like environmental restrictions on use of private property). I don't know from where you are getting these ideas, maybe Ronald Dworkin?

You're talking "could"; I'm talking "should".

I guess here lies the core of our dissent. I'm talking about things as they are, while you are rambling about what you want them to be. Is it that hard to accept that Nintendo has rights? And that they can enforce and protect them? And, most importantly, that there's nothing wrong with doing so? Just to let you know, these questions are of a rhetorical nature, since your attitude has already provided the answers.

What a time to be alive, when simply stating what is right may be seen as "bootlicking".

Mon Dec 14 20 06:33pm
(Updated 2 times)

I was talking of things as they stand, not as they may or may not be in the uncertain future. As of now, Nintendo's OSTs aren't public domain. Thus, they're right in protecting their IPs.

Yeah, that's why people are complaining. The whole point of commentary isn't to reiterate the status quo like some automaton completely at the whims of its master, but to express an opinion; whether positive or negative is the right of the individual based on how they feel the world ought or ought not to be.

Just as no one can (currently) stop Nintendo from shutting down harmless Youtube channels, nor stop bootlickers from solemnly nodding along to these decisions like the good little consumers they've been groomed to be, neither can anyone stop individuals from exercising their right to disagree with these decisions in the comments section of a website dedicated to this very activity.

You also never answered the first question posed to you! So, I'll ask it again:

What is the quantifiable harm being done to Nintendo when someone listens to a song that they don't even sell anywhere?

Anyway, sucks for Gilva, but I'm glad I have my mp3 folder!

Eh, not to extend this already long discussion, but:

I - there simply isn't anything wrong with Nintendo's action. I'm not saying this because it's Nintendo, but that would be true regardless of the parties involved, even if in place of Ninty we had, say, EA, or Disney, or whatever other company/person. So, stop with these silly "bootlicking" accusations.

II - The other guys involved were not simply "disagreeing" with the aforementioned actions. I would have no problem if that were the case. The thing is, they act like Nintendo is doing some sort of heinous crime, as if defending one's rights should be seen as the ultimate sin.

III - Don't get me wrong, I am all for "expressing an opinion; whether positive or negative", but our colleague there tried to argue with law, so I had to talk about what the status quo is, as the law simply isn't a desire for change of random individuals.

IV - His/Her question is irrelevant. Harm doesn't need to be quantified here. Nintendo is not suing that youtuber for damages or anything. Nor it would be in other hypothetical cases - no, you don't need to confirm that a trespasser has done "quantifiable harm" to kick him/her out of your property. It is simply besides the point to ask that. By the very attempt to use the OSTs without due authorization, Nintendo was harmed, even if it lost no money.

V - I don't know why you are sorry for that guy. Unless if he is completely stupid, he knew he had no right to use music he didn't own. Every youtuber that does use copyrighted content in full, beyond the graces of fair use, is just taking a risk. His content may or may not be taken down. If it is not, that's great; if it is though, well, he can't really complain.

Finally, you can get mad all you want, but that won't change what is right and what is not. And acknowledging this doesn't mean being "an automaton", my dear one. If you want so badly to disagree with the status quo, then go after things that are actually wrong. Protecting one's rights is not among these.

Fri Dec 18 20 10:29pm
(Updated 1 time)

there simply isn't anything wrong with Nintendo's action.

Actually, there is. That's why people are annoyed and voicing their annoyance.

I'm not saying this because it's Nintendo, but that would be true regardless of the parties involved, even if in place of Ninty we had, say, EA, or Disney, or whatever other company/person. So, stop with these silly "bootlicking" accusations.

Oh, so you don't even have the excuse of youthful exuberance coming to the defense of what you perceive as the friendly giant that entertains you and provides you with a community erected around the shared experience of said entertainment- just mindless shilling for corporations the world over.

The other guys involved were not simply "disagreeing" with the aforementioned actions.

Uh, yeah they were. Nintendo did something, people disagreed and voiced their disagreement in the comments section. The world doesn't revolve around you, so no one gives a shit if the commentary wasn't diplomatic enough for your delicate sensibilities.

our colleague there tried to argue with law

No, he corrected you, pointed out the folly in your comparison, but also gave you the chance to elaborate on your claim, gentleman that he is.

so I had to talk about what the status quo is

Uh, yeah, we know what the status quo is- that's exactly what we're upset about. It's really not that hard to get- looks like you need that CPU replaced!

His/Her question is irrelevant. Harm doesn't need to be quantified here.

Uh, actually it is. Laws are established to protect the rights of individuals or of collections of individuals. They're repealed if they fail to do so or contribute to some adverse effect on society. There are laws against trespassing and burglary because those activities have been shown to result in harm- demonstrable, observable, quantifiable harm.

You may have missed the memo, but the cosmos wasn't generated seven days ago with trespassing (or copyright protection) laws already enabled. Over the course of centuries, collections of people settled on terms and agreements that span thousands of pages- and these are still being debated and modified to this day. Seems this little bot needs a memory upgrade, too.

So, anyway, the question is asked once more:

"What is the quantifiable harm being done to Nintendo when someone listens to a song that they don't even sell anywhere?"

By the very attempt to use the OSTs without due authorization, Nintendo was harmed, even if it lost no money.

Didn't know machines were capable of delusion.

I don't know why you are sorry for that guy.

I'm not, and I'm sure he's not too upset about it either. The music will be back up eventually- on his channel or someone else's. I, of course, have my trusty mp3 folder.

Finally, you can get mad all you want, but that won't change what is right and what is not.

The rest of us may be annoyed, but only one person here is really 'mad' (hint: it's the guy trying to police opinions on a video game forum).

If you want so badly to disagree with the status quo, then go after things that are actually wrong.

Funny because just a while back I saw someone arguing that BP already paid its dues and that the continued ecological catastrophe and health crises in Louisiana and the surrounding region are no longer its concern because if they were, the laws would have made sure of it.

Similarly, another argument I witnessed had someone claiming that the US's terroristic foreign policy is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of the law because if it wasn't, then it would be illegal (duh!).

The Shillbot 1000, however, computes that argument against either claim is futile because the status quo is the law and the status quo is irrefutable because it is the status quo and also the law, and people would be better going after what's "actually wrong."*

*

Spoiler

I have no idea what you're trying to state or prove here

I'm really not sure how to state it any plainer: the law as it stands is bad and should be changed.

Which words do you need me to explain?

Thus, they're right in protecting their IPs.

Things aren't "right" in an ethical sense just because they happen to be legal at a given time. Throughout history all sorts of awful things have been protected by laws at some point or another.

I was not denying morality as it stands

"The only thing that matters is for the holder to prove their ownership" is absolutely denying that morality matters.

In the 1500s it was 100% legal to own slaves in most countries. Was there "nothing wrong" with that too?

Is it that hard to accept that Nintendo has rights? And that they can enforce and protect them? And, most importantly, that there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I accept that Nintendo has legal rights that they can enforce. I don't accept that having a legal right to do something means that a company is somehow above morality or beyond the realm of criticism for doing that thing.

Is it that hard for you to accept that behaviour that is technically legal can also be bad?

What a time to be alive, when simply stating what is right may be seen as "bootlicking".

English isn't my first language so I thought I might have misunderstood the expression but after looking it up... my first instinct was correct.

The idea that it's impossible for corporate laws to ever be unjust is indeed an excessively obedient and servile one.

imperator karorusu
Wed Dec 16 20 06:01pm
(Updated 1 time)

the law as it stands is bad and should be changed.


Okay. However, remember that this wasn't your original point, but rather that there should be a "quantifiable harm" for Nintendo to act.

Things aren't "right" in an ethical sense just because they happen to be legal at a given time. Throughout history all sorts of awful things have been protected by laws at some point or another.

Yes, undoubtedly. As I said before, I don't deny this. It just so happens that you pulled this out of nowhere, since my opposition was to your claim that if Nintendo didn't have a "good reason" to take down videos featuring their music, they would "forfeit their moral rights" to their copyrights. That is simply untrue.

Now, I find it endearing that you are bringing up morals, ethics, all the good stuff, but then answer me: is usurping music you don't own and making it available for the whole world without due authorization of the rightful owner a morally correct action? Mr. Gilva Sunner wasn't doing any sort of prim and proper thing. It's far from being the worse one could do, but it is still far from being morally correct too.

I don't accept that having a legal right to do something means that a company is somehow above morality or beyond the realm of criticism for doing that thing.

Eh, I never said that. I think there's a lot one can find to criticize Nintendo. For example, they are parternering with Tencent to sell consoles in China, but yet no one takes an issue with that. Partnerships with an offshoot of a dreadful tyranny is somehow okay to some, but defending IPs is a horrible move.

In other words, I am all for criticism. But in this case, they simply are doing things right. Yeah, I know you disagree.

The idea that it's impossible for corporate laws to ever be unjust is indeed an excessively obedient and servile one.

Again, my point is that Nintendo is right on this particular subject. And this kind of assertion can be easily turned towards you, as you are acting like it's impossible for corporate laws to ever be just. Sorry pal, but this line of thinking is pretty stupid. Your words make it clear that you are opposing them for the sake of opposing a big corporation, as if that condition made them unquestionably bad and irredeemably wrong.

And finally, the only one here with servile ideas is you. In a world where even companies wouldn't be able to protect their property (regardless of whether it is of an intellectual nature or not), just imagine how many abuses would the average citizen suffer. It's that society that would be an "excessively obedient and servile one".

casey
Thu Dec 17 20 04:42am
(Updated 1 time)

Okay. However, remember that this wasn't your original point, but rather that there should be a "quantifiable harm" for Nintendo to act.

Quantifiable harm establishes moral ground and yes. Nintendo should have a moral ground before it acts.

Yes, undoubtedly. As I said before, I don't deny this.

You said you didn't deny that morality matters like 2 sentences before you literally said that only the law matters lol.

Nintendo didn't have a "good reason" to take down videos featuring their music, they would "forfeit their moral rights" to their copyrights. That is simply untrue.

No it's not. The philosophical burden of proof lies on the party trying to make the case that something exists (e.g., establish the presence of material injury or of moral grounds).

If I download a copy of a piece of music (which for practical purposes there exist infinite copies of) then the onus is not on me to prove a negative (that there is no injury) because proving negatives is functionally impossible. I can explain the million ways in which it does not hurt Nintendo at all in any meaningful sense for me to have the freedom to listen to that song. I can say "It does no financial harm to them since they're not selling the music and therefore there is no revenue that they are missing out on (and in fact they are the ones harming their own finances by not providing legal avenues of purchase)". I can say "It does no harm to their reputation that I like a song enough to listen to it (and in fact they are the ones who harm their reputation when they act to restrict access)". I can say "Nintendo's ability to commercially produce and use this music in any of their future games is completely retained".

But none of those preclude the hypothetical possibility that there might be some hitherto unknown material harm. That's where you come in. If such injury exists then it's your responsibility to make that case and answer the question. Your response to the request of proof of quantifiable (tangible or otherwise) harm being that the question is irrelevant is actually why the question is relevant: namely that you can't provide any such proof.

Now, I find it endearing that you are bringing up morals, ethics, all the good stuff, but then answer me: is usurping music you don't own and making it available for the whole world without due authorization of the rightful owner a morally correct action?

Of course. In a system of virtue ethics we all have moral rights (stated or otherwise) insofar as those do not materially harm others.

The world has a right to access that music in some form or another and under certain reasonable conditions. Literally every copyright law acknowledges this right (including the North American constitution). It exists alongside those property ownership rights that you love so dearly.

In a world where Nintendo were selling that music legally the right of the public to access that music would be preserved as would all of Nintendo's attendant rights of ownership.

(If someone were providing free unauthorized copies to the music in that scenario then that would be actual piracy and the quantifiable harm would be the value of the hypothetical sales lost and Nintendo would have the full untrammeled moral right to shut that channel down. Or forcibly monetise it so they get their fair cut.)

Nintendo's decision *not* to provide legal venues to access music deprives the public of the use of the music. That's a material harm. In the previous example I had the ability to legally enjoy a piece of music and now that ability has been taken from me.

(And incidentally that harm to me is actually quantifiable: If I were willing in the previous example to buy Dire Dire Docks for (idk conversion rates) let's say 10 USD then I am now deprived of $10 in value.)

IP rights are (both legally and morally) prima facie rights which means they can be outweighed by other considerations. They're not some absolute thing that have to be accepted irrespective of the injury they cause the public or regardless of the total lack of injury that infringing upon them in specific limited ways would cause.

Consequently Nintendo has the moral ground to shut down an outfit like GilvaSunner's in the world where their music is available for sale. They lose that ground when they try to deny the public the right of any legal consumption. And they'd gain that moral right back if at any time they changed their mind and started selling it.

Mr. Gilva Sunner wasn't doing any sort of prim and proper thing.

No one said it was "prim" or "proper". Heroes don't always wear capes.

And this kind of assertion can be easily turned towards you, as you are acting like it's impossible for corporate laws to ever be just.

I can see why you'd want to pretend that I am remotely as anti-corporations as you are anti-the-public-good but lol no. Miss me with that.

See. My example acknowledges both a right for Nintendo to earn a profit from its work *and* a right for the public to access that work in ways that are beneficial to Nintendo. They can still prosecute music piracy. Corporate laws still exist in this scenario. They just exist in a balance that's mildly less disproportionately favourable to the corporation and substantially more beneficial to the world at large.

You're the one who seems to think that Nintendo is literally the only one with rights here and that Nintendo's rights supersede everything else and they don't ever have to justify anything they do to be morally correct.

And finally, the only one here with servile ideas is you

That was a whole lot of word when you could've just said "no u".

In a world where even companies wouldn't be able to protect their property

Let's be clear here: in the world I envision companies would still be able to protect their property. Pretty much every major videogame company in the entire industry already provides means to legally purchase their music and would thus be completely unaffected.

You're acting like basic moneymaking transactions are some unspeakable thing that no business should ever be subjected to lmao.

just imagine how many abuses would the average citizen suffer

Ah yes. The "average citizen" who... has a mountain of extremely lucrative IP that they can afford to just let sit in their basement and never see the light of day. Totally normal situation.

Quantifiable harm establishes moral ground and yes. Nintendo should have a moral ground before it acts.

Only on your head. From the moment their rights were violated, they were able to counteract. And don't come with your "oh, but the Law is wrong, and that's how I want things to be" act, since in that case proving "moral grounds" would be a very abstract affair, making it impractical.

Quantification has nothing to do with it. As I said to the other dumbass that came here, you don't need to check whether or not a trespasser has done "quantifiable harm" before kicking him or her out of your property. The very act of trespassing is harmful per se . And it is similar here, as breaching copyrights is harmful in itself. That's why quantification is irrelevant.

It's just as I said before, this isn't about money, it's about rights.

The philosophical burden of proof lies on the party trying to make the case that something exists (e.g., establish the presence of material injury or of moral grounds).

[...]

You are having a fever dream. That's not how things work here. Or else C&D wouldn't be a thing. Again, it's not about money. Nintendo can do whatever they want with their copyrighted songs, just as they do with all their IPs. Including doing nothing at all. You might not like it, but it's not the competence of third-parties (that is, everyone else) to determine that they should make their songs available. And that's precisely what Mr. Gilva did. It's the same as someone fetching an old bike off your garage and then claiming: "hey yo, you you don't put it to use for years, so I can ride now".

Your whole thesis is preposterous. The very fact that Nintendo's music was available without their consent is a just reason for them to issue a C&D.

The world has a right to access that music in some form or another and under certain reasonable conditions. Literally every copyright law acknowledges this right (including the North American constitution). It exists alongside those property ownership rights that you love so dearly.

WTF???? There isn't a single correct sentence here. If you are really interested in debating, please don't make things up. It not only looks bad, but is definitely dishonest.

There is no positive "right to access to music". You can listen to music freely, but this doesn’t constitute a right you can enforce against others. I wonder what is this "North American constitution" you speak of. It is weird not only because it is "North American" or a "c onstitution", but also because it is a copyright law instead of being a government charter. Anyway, I hope you can quote this most sacred "North American" document and show me proof of your claims.

In a world where Nintendo were selling that music legally the right of the public to access that music would be preserved as would all of Nintendo's attendant rights of ownership.

[...]

Nintendo's decision *not* to provide legal venues to access music deprives the public of the use of the music. That's a material harm. In the previous example I had the ability to legally enjoy a piece of music and now that ability has been taken from me.

And the fever dream goes on. Do you realize that you have just confirmed your own mental inepcy? If Nintendo harms you by taking away access to their music, then I ask you: what is the quantifiable harm being done to you?

...

Oh yeah, that's right, none. See how that is irrelevant? Your proposed quantification is, to say the least, fantastic...

And this is not to mention that no, Nintendo cannot be obliged to make their music available, and that no one gets hurt by their decision to not do so. It's a very interesting argument, but nonetheless wrong: that the lack of licit means may make illicit means licit. It is the same tale that piracy apologists use, ironically.

In reality, if Nintendo doesn't want to distribute their copyrighted materials, there simply isn't anything you can do. It's theirs, pal, not yours. Then you might say: "B-but I'm 2500% smarter than their decision-makers and I know they would make tons of money if they did so". Perhaps, but for the nth time, this isn't about money, it's about rights. Making money isn't above ensuring rights.

Consequently Nintendo has the moral ground to shut down an outfit like GilvaSunner's in the world where their music is available for sale. They lose that ground when they try to deny the public the right of any legal consumption. And they'd gain that moral right back if at any time they changed their mind and started selling it.

Oh yeah, absolutely... Nintendo is hiding everyone's true and only source of salvation! I need that music more than water! They should go out of their way and let me listen to OSTs of games I already own!

Please, stop strawmanning this. I get it, you want to listen to the music. But it's not like rights actually originate from your desires. Nintendo isn't even a record company, LOL. They don't have any obligation at all to makes theirs OSTs available.

No one said it was "prim" or "proper". Heroes don't always wear capes.

Yeah, they steal content. Nice.

You're acting like basic moneymaking transactions are some unspeakable thing that no business should ever be subjected to lmao.

No pal, it just so happens that you can't force them to engage on that business front. That's up to them, not to us.

Ah yes. The "average citizen" who... has a mountain of extremely lucrative IP that they can afford to just let sit in their basement and never see the light of day. Totally normal situation.

I own a lot of unused stuff here at home. Following your logic, I shouldn't complain in case someone steals, say, my 20 year old Pokémon TCG Gameboy cartridge, because, after all, it's just "sitting on my basement". I don't know if you have ever heard about a little thing called analogy, but I believe even you can grasp the fact that rules that affect what is big can affect what is small, mutatis mutandis.

In the end, your whole broken thesis would mean the dismantling of property rights. All for the sake of listening to some music on Youtube instead of simply booting up the games whence they come from. You certainly have some good priorities!

In the end, your whole broken thesis would mean the dismantling of property rights. You certainly have some good priorities!

Well, some people were saying the same thing not too long ago and Lincoln is now widely considered to be prez #1. ;-)

proving "moral grounds" would be a very abstract affair

Oh we're avoiding all talk of things that are abstract now?

Tell me then: What colour is a property right? What's it taste like? How much does it weigh? What is it shaped like? Where did it come from?

making it impractical

If you want to talk purely about practical reality then it's technically impossible Nintendo to prevent mass-scale infringement of their copyrights anyway so in that case why should anyone care what the law says?

If you don't believe morality or normative arguments like "should" have relevance here then you don't really have any grounds to complain when people that can ignore the law choose to do so.

From the moment their rights were violated, they were able to counteract.

"Able to" this. "Able to" that. A study recently found that a quarter of all worldwide internet bandwidth use is dedicated to the violation of copyright laws. Nintendo isn't able to prosecute all of the people downloading their games let alone the ones who just want to listen to a poorly-compressed MP3 of the Rainbow Road theme.

As I said to the other dumbass

Lol. You're mad.

you don't need to check whether or not a trespasser has done "quantifiable harm" before kicking him or her out of your property

Copyright and land rights aren't the same thing lol. You can't go around calling people names about that where not even the legal system would agree there.

"Your Honor! Copyright is about the control of intellectual property just like drugs laws are about controlled substances. Therefore when you think about it copyright infringement is really the same thing as cocaine!"

That's not how things work here.

We're not inside a court room. We're having a philosophical disagreement on a public forum. That's exactly how things work here.

You can't just say "The law says this is fine so it must fine and everyone who disagrees has to shut up" and expect anyone to buy that. You want to make the claim that the law is right and we should keep it around? You have to justify that claim.

breaching copyrights is harmful in itself

No it's not. If the harm goes away the second a party stops saying "I am harmed" then there was never any material harm to begin with. The harm was as abstract as those morals you say don't matter.

(That's not to say that copyright infringement can't *ever* be harmful. I fully acknowledge circumstances exist where it would result in quantifiable harm and in those cases neither I nor any other reasonable person would oppose its continued illegality. This specific case however is not one of those circumstances.)

Nintendo can do whatever they want

In strictly legal terms maybe. In ethical or practical terms? Nope.

It's the same as someone fetching an old bike off your garage and then claiming: "hey yo, you you don't put it to use for years, so I can ride now".

You know if you acknowledged the basic differences between intellectual property and physical property like a normal person then maybe you'd be able to make better analogies.

If someone takes your bike you no longer have that bike. Do you think that if someone downloads a song then Nintendo has lost that song forever? Like there was only one copy of Bob-Omb Battlefield in the entire world and now thanks to GilvaSunner it's in the hands of some random Youtube surfer?

I hate to break it to you but if that's the case then the sole copy of Bob-Omb Battlefield to ever exist has been lost to Nintendo forever... uhhh 291,000 times according to the top result on Youtube.

If you are really interested in debating, please don't make things up. It not only looks bad, but is definitely dishonest.

I agree! It looked very bad when you made up that GilvaSunner was monetising his videos.

And when you made up that copyright can be lost like land rights if not defended.

And when you made up a bunch of nonsense about how Universal "lost King Kong's copyright".

And when you made up that physical property rights are the exact same thing as intellectual property rights.

And when you said it was unreasonable to expect 20 year old music to enter the public domain even though for centuries it could enter the public domain after only 14.

It also looked incredibly bad when you said that the law shouldn't conform to any kind of moral standards though at least in that case you were at least being honest.

There is no positive "right to access to music".

Sorry but you're wrong. Moral rights exist whether the law recognises them or not.

"The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions-knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas- became, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use. -Justice Lous Brandeis

I wonder what is this "North American constitution" you speak of.

I'm not certain why or how you can think it makes you look good to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about just because I didn't use some formal title that no one ever uses.

Yeah I didn't capitalise a letter. My bad lol?

I don't think that really compares to you not understanding the meaning of the phrase "The Congress shall have the Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

And the fever dream goes on. Do you realize that you have just confirmed your own mental inepcy? If Nintendo harms you by taking away access to their music, then I ask you: what is the quantifiable harm being done to you?

Wow. It's honestly a little impressive how you thought this was some sort of devastating own when... I detailed the quantifiable harm being done to me in literally the next line.

Like I specifically said the words "And incidentally that harm to me is actually quantifiable" and went on to describe how to quantify it.

Were you so proud of yourself for "mental inepcy" that you just didn't notice that I had answered your apparent ace-in-the-hole rhetorical question... before you even asked it?

Your proposed quantification is, to say the least, fantastic...

Oh good you did see it.... and you still decided to make that above comment anyway lmao

If you can explain how the idea of physical goods having value denoted by monetary pricing is "fantastic" then by all means do so.

They should go out of their way and let me listen to OSTs of games I already own!

Stop right there. I never said anything about listening to the OSTs of games that one already owns.

If you already own the game you don't have the moral right to listen to the OST -- you do however have the moral right to be able to rip a copy of that music for your own personal use.

That's a different conversation though.

But it's not like rights actually originate from your desires.

I agree! Moral rights originate from a system of ethics and not desires.

Nintendo desires to stop people from listening to certain songs; they lack both the moral grounds and the practical capacity to do so.

Please, stop strawmanning this. I get it, you want to listen to the music.

Yeeeah... no. I actually don't like listening to game music all that much lol.

(And if I did I wouldn't use Youtube.)

((And if I did use Youtube then GilvaSunner's removal wouldn't impact me anyway since there's like 12 other channels on the same site offering the same albums.))

I oppose what Nintendo is doing on principle.

Yeah, [heroes] steal content. Nice.

"Prometheus did not want to live amongst the clouds on Mount Olympus. He was too busy for that. While the gods were spending their time in idleness, drinking nectar and eating ambrosia, he was planning how to make the world wiser and better than it had ever been before.

So instead of living on Olympus, Prometheus went out amongst men to live with them and help them and he quickly noticed that they were no longer happy as they had been during the golden days when Kronos, the titan, was king. He found them living in caves and in holes of the earth, shivering with the cold because there was no fire, dying of starvation, hunted by wild beasts and by one another—the most miserable of all living creatures.

"If they only had fire," said Prometheus to himself, "they could at least warm themselves and cook their food; and after a while they could learn to make tools and build themselves houses. Without fire, they are worse off than the beasts."

Prometheus went boldly to Zeus and begged him to give fire to the people, so that so they might have a little comfort through the long, dreary months of winter.

"I will not!" said Zeus, "Not one spark will I share with them! For if men had fire they might become strong and wise like us, and after a while they would drive us out of our kingdom. Besides, fire is a dangerous tool and they are too poor and ignorant to be trusted with it. It is better that we on Mount Olympus rule the world without threat so all can be happy."

...

"Mankind shall have fire, despite what Zeus has decided," he said to himself. And with that thought, he snuck quietly into Zeus' domain and stole a spark from Zeus' own lightning bolt. Prometheus touched the end of the long reed to the spark, and the dry substance within it caught on fire and burned slowly. Prometheus hurried back to his own land, carrying with him the precious spark hidden in the hollow center of the plant.

When he reached home, he called some of the shivering people from their caves and built a fire for them, and showed them how to warm themselves by it and use it to cook their food. Men and women gathered round the fire and were warm and happy, and thankful to Prometheus for the wonderful gift which he had brought to them."

it just so happens that you can't force them to engage on that business front. That's up to them, not to us.

Disallowing them from going after someone like GilvaSunner under certain specific conditions isn't "forcing them to engage on a business front." Engaging on that business front would just be an action that Nintendo could take to void GilvaSunner's moral claim.

They'd be perfectly free to continue not-selling their OSTs until the end of time.

I own a lot of unused stuff here at home. Following your logic, I shouldn't complain in case someone steals, say, my 20 year old Pokémon TCG Gameboy cartridge, because, after all, it's just "sitting on my basement".[quote]

Your TCG Gameboy cartridge is a physical good. By definition someone stealing it from your possession deprives you the ability to derive value from that good.

Preventing you from deriving value from that good is a quantifiable harm btw.

(Do you notice how your analogy breaks down for the same reason that you can't answer the question that started this? Funny coincidence that.)

[quote]I don't know if you have ever heard about a little thing called analogy, but I believe even you can grasp the fact that rules that affect what is big can affect what is small, mutatis mutandis.

Your analogy is based on the idea that we should treat physical property and intellectual property the same. We don't and never have lol. Not morally. Not practically. Not legally.

In the end, your whole broken thesis would mean the dismantling of property rights

Ah yes. The "slippery slope" argument: We can't let gay people legally marry because then we'd have to let people legally marry dogs and rocks and then the entire institution of marriage would collapse!

Or. You know. We could just make same-sex marriage legal and also keep dog-marriage and rock-marriage illegal.

You know. That thing that countries actually did and which has not resulted in a godless Bacchanalia of bestiality and... rockiality?

We can't even slightly relax copyright laws one iota or else people will steal my Gameboy!

Or. You know. We can. And they won't.

Spotify pays out such little money that it’s hardly worth having your music there. The only reason is that they’re (probably?) the most popular streaming service for music, so you get exposure. I’ve seen musicians speak out while everyone is posting their Spotify end of year recap thing.

Tue Dec 08 20 11:43am
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

Why don’t they just put this content on their own YouTube channel so people can enjoy the soundtracks?

Because they don't want to, and don't want you interested in their older products anyway.

I think you mean they want to sell you their older products ;)

mystikoi
Tue Dec 08 20 12:03pm
Rating: 1

I wish they would try and sell a lot more of their older products.

tupin
Tue Dec 08 20 12:12pm
Rating: 1

Only the ones that they want to sell you. They want you to forget that Mario Kart Wii exists, because they think it cuts into sales of 8 Deluxe.

Does anyone know how these tracks were used?
Also the message is dated as August of last year :S

GilvaSunner?

Isn't he the youtuber that makes money off posting the OSTs of games?

At least that's how I remember it going.

jar
Tue Dec 08 20 11:03pm
(Updated 1 time)

If this is true, there's the problem. People are making money from Nintendo's music from ads.

pc
Tue Dec 08 20 09:17pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: NINTENDO. We are willing to GIVE YOU MONEY in exchange for YOUR MUSIC. If you don't want people to upload all your music to the internet, then RELEASE IT SO WE CAN LISTEN TO IT.

Search

Today's VIP

tengoku's avatar
Joined: March 2017
Fledgling

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!