Super Mario Bros. Commodore 64 Fan Port Hit with DMCA(gamasutra.com)
gamasutra.com
Super Mario Bros. Commodore 64 Fan Port Hit with DMCA
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/341284/Super_Mario_Bros_Commodore_64_fan_port_hit_with_DMCA_takedowns.php
92 comments
Apparently, they’ve lightened up a bit on this. https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/28/18117172/nintendo-youtub...
Reminds me of this for some reason.
https://www.polygon.com/2015/12/14/10123754/john-romero-supe...
https://www.polygon.com/2015/12/14/10123754/john-romero-supe...
This is true. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtaFU2ky9E
Nobody hates their most hardcore fans more than Nintendo.
I'm not so sure why this is getting downvoted as Nintendo's approach to this kind of thing does seem unnecessarily hostile, and it's certainly a pattern of behaviour, not a one-off instance.
It doesn't make any sense to me either: I mean, do they really think that because I've bought a copy of SMB 64, that I'm not going to buy any more SMB games? I've kind of lost track but, just with the 3DS I carry around fairly regularly, I have at least 3 SMB games (one or two for DS OG), plus a bunch of other games around the Mario IP.
It doesn't make any sense to me either: I mean, do they really think that because I've bought a copy of SMB 64, that I'm not going to buy any more SMB games? I've kind of lost track but, just with the 3DS I carry around fairly regularly, I have at least 3 SMB games (one or two for DS OG), plus a bunch of other games around the Mario IP.
> Nobody hates their most hardcore fans more than Nintendo.
Perhaps you should not become a fan of a company with such a bullying behaviour.
Perhaps you should not become a fan of a company with such a bullying behaviour.
One can certainly stop being a fan, but a Nintendo fan was probably one before they knew anything about how they treat their fans.
Blaming the victim for not knowing enough about ostensibly bad company practices when they became fans seems more than a little unfair, especially as many became fans when they were quite young.
I openly say I cannot stay a fan as soon as I hear of such bullying behaviour.
I find Nintendo to be the gaming equivalent of Apple.
Horrible to customers and developers while taking nice profits.
I don't buy from either, but I know these are popular gifts from uninformed parents to kids who watch lots of commercials.
Horrible to customers and developers while taking nice profits.
I don't buy from either, but I know these are popular gifts from uninformed parents to kids who watch lots of commercials.
While this is crappy, it is the default behavior of most large companies when it comes to copyright. As people have described I mistakenly said that copyright must be enforced or it is lost. Agreed I was confusing it with trademark. Despite that, I see many companies treating copyright the same and harassing all copyright infringers with abandon even if it is harmless.
I will also share another story. Some years ago I owned n64.org. I ran a fan website of Nintendo 64 games there. It was quite popular. I was underage ( < 18 ) at the time I bought the domain, and I bought the domain before NOA registered "n64" as a trademark.
NOA threatened to sue me for the domain. I refused as their claim that people would think my fan site was the official Nintendo site was entirely nonsense. In the end they wrote a check to me for like $50 or something equally ridiculous.
Nintendo is not your friend. They don't do a good job taking care of their fans. They will happily sue or threaten you for doing anything they don't happen to like.
I will also share another story. Some years ago I owned n64.org. I ran a fan website of Nintendo 64 games there. It was quite popular. I was underage ( < 18 ) at the time I bought the domain, and I bought the domain before NOA registered "n64" as a trademark.
NOA threatened to sue me for the domain. I refused as their claim that people would think my fan site was the official Nintendo site was entirely nonsense. In the end they wrote a check to me for like $50 or something equally ridiculous.
Nintendo is not your friend. They don't do a good job taking care of their fans. They will happily sue or threaten you for doing anything they don't happen to like.
I am not a lawyer, but I am nearly 100% sure that what you are talking about is trademark protection [1] rather than copyright, people get these wrong frequently. As far as I know, you can enforce your copyright completely arbitrarily.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
You don't lose copyright if you don't defend against infringements. You're thinking of a trademark. You do lose a trademark if you abandon it. Nintendo could ignore this copyright infringement and still sue everyone else if they wanted to.
Regardless of that though, a rights holder can defend their right by issuing a takedown (like this DMCA notice) or by stating the infringement is officially acceptable (and pretty cool.) It doesn't always have to be negative.
Regardless of that though, a rights holder can defend their right by issuing a takedown (like this DMCA notice) or by stating the infringement is officially acceptable (and pretty cool.) It doesn't always have to be negative.
I have heard they have been super aggressive about takedowns on YouTube videos showing switch modding even though there are no copyright violations
I don't know why anyone would want Nintendo to be their friend.
[deleted]
They seem to really hate direct ports of their work.
Curiously, there is a thriving Super Mario 64 rom hacking community that is rarely hit with notices. Afaik, no one really knows why. There are 100+ games and even a nearly complete level editor. Even when Nintendo were demonetizing videos of their games, these were spared.
Curiously, there is a thriving Super Mario 64 rom hacking community that is rarely hit with notices. Afaik, no one really knows why. There are 100+ games and even a nearly complete level editor. Even when Nintendo were demonetizing videos of their games, these were spared.
No bigcorp wants to be the first to lose an infringement case to "fair use", because that would be a beachhead from which much less palatable uses could be launched. While it's impossible to derive corporate motives from corporate (in)actions, their inaction certainly does suggest that they think they'd lose to "fair use" if they tried to shut them down.
> thriving Super Mario 64 rom hacking community that is rarely hit with notice
Probably limited resources. The ones that do get hit are the big ones like Super Mario 64 Online [1] . Instead of the hacks themselves they seem focus on youtube quite a bit. I know a lot of Super Mario 64 emulation and emulation of other Nintendo properties is often DMCAed on that platform. [2] discussion [3]
[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43axqp/nintendo-s...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtaFU2ky9E&t=192s
[3] https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/nintendo-is-abusing-youtu...
Probably limited resources. The ones that do get hit are the big ones like Super Mario 64 Online [1] . Instead of the hacks themselves they seem focus on youtube quite a bit. I know a lot of Super Mario 64 emulation and emulation of other Nintendo properties is often DMCAed on that platform. [2] discussion [3]
[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43axqp/nintendo-s...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtaFU2ky9E&t=192s
[3] https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/nintendo-is-abusing-youtu...
The article is confusing about the details.
"Last Impact" never got a takedown notice and PC Gamer even wrote an article about it (as well as Nintendo clearly being aware of Kaze).
As I said, there is a lack of aggression against SM64 hacks and it has never really been explained--but yes, they do hate copies or extensions to their engines that are essentially their own game, but better. SM64 online definitely qualifies. But again, this isn't correlated to how popular or how much of an online footprint the games have.
(Article here https://www.pcgamer.com/super-mario-64-rom-hack-last-impact-... )
"Last Impact" never got a takedown notice and PC Gamer even wrote an article about it (as well as Nintendo clearly being aware of Kaze).
As I said, there is a lack of aggression against SM64 hacks and it has never really been explained--but yes, they do hate copies or extensions to their engines that are essentially their own game, but better. SM64 online definitely qualifies. But again, this isn't correlated to how popular or how much of an online footprint the games have.
(Article here https://www.pcgamer.com/super-mario-64-rom-hack-last-impact-... )
Hacks are distributed as .ips patches or deltas. No original code is distributed. Most romhacking sites are fairly careful about not allowing ROMs or links to ROMs being distributed. The difference with the commodore port was it was a direct port of a full game with a cartidge ROM being distributed. At least I think that's why this got taken down while hacks stay up usually.
Mario 64 romhacks are sometimes distributed as patches to the original game instead of the complete modified game as well, and since it's just a diff it's not subject to copyright.
Mostly because they're more akin to a remix. These also do not infringe trademarks.
Dissappointing, but entirely expected.
That's OK. The DMCA action will have little impact on the community of people who enjoy this kind of thing.
(people who have been around long enough to know better is possible here)
That's OK. The DMCA action will have little impact on the community of people who enjoy this kind of thing.
(people who have been around long enough to know better is possible here)
This is a duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730987
I fail to see how this takedown benefits Nintendo.
How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything ?
How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything ?
They are selling their old NES games still, both through Nintendo Switch Online subscriptions and what ever is left in stock of the NES Classic.
This is not some sort of abondonware.
This is not some sort of abondonware.
So, just to complete your thought here: the way that you are answering the question "How could a C64 port of a NES game released more than 30 years ago could threaten any sale of anything?" is to suggest that people are going to buy a C64 to play Super Mario Bros instead of a Switch?
That's what you're saying?
That's what you're saying?
That is one argument that is often made, however the real issue is that if Nintendo doesn't do this takedown, does not protect its intellectual property, they may lose it entirely - to retain a copyright you have to actively defend it.
I think you're thinking of trademark defense, not copyright.
It's also false for TM.
Depending on who you ask, failure to police your trademark may either weaken it or outright serve as evidence of abandonment by genericization. Either way, it may lessen your claim to the mark.
>evidence of abandonment by genericization //
That's not at all how genericisation works it's really quite the opposite of abandonment.
The way one abandons a registered trademark, assuming we're talking about the registered rights [I only know about the un-registered rights in the UK, not sure what the scope of unregistered marks is in USA], is by not paying your renewal fees.
What it may do is reduce your damages claim to actual damages from the point when you notify the infringer.
Regardless, even if it were the case that one was required to notify all users there is always the option to offer a limited license for use of marks, so the layman idea of "you have to prosecute or you'll lose your mark" would still be wrong under such a regime.
Whilst the law is not logical, if you think about it allowing the law to work in the way claimed would actually provide a route to easily invalidate any [registered] trademark. One would simply use the mark for trade in a hidden way that the owner could not discover, the failure to notify of the infringement would then -- if the common wisdom held -- invalidate the mark and cause it to be abandoned. Millions of people would be falling over themselves to register Microsoft all the time because they were selling a product using that name and MS never notified them; it would be an entirely unworkable system.
That's not at all how genericisation works it's really quite the opposite of abandonment.
The way one abandons a registered trademark, assuming we're talking about the registered rights [I only know about the un-registered rights in the UK, not sure what the scope of unregistered marks is in USA], is by not paying your renewal fees.
What it may do is reduce your damages claim to actual damages from the point when you notify the infringer.
Regardless, even if it were the case that one was required to notify all users there is always the option to offer a limited license for use of marks, so the layman idea of "you have to prosecute or you'll lose your mark" would still be wrong under such a regime.
Whilst the law is not logical, if you think about it allowing the law to work in the way claimed would actually provide a route to easily invalidate any [registered] trademark. One would simply use the mark for trade in a hidden way that the owner could not discover, the failure to notify of the infringement would then -- if the common wisdom held -- invalidate the mark and cause it to be abandoned. Millions of people would be falling over themselves to register Microsoft all the time because they were selling a product using that name and MS never notified them; it would be an entirely unworkable system.
Please. What's the actual scenario you are envisioning here? Do you really, honestly believe that a jury is going to conclude that Nintendo is no longer the rightful owner of a trademark on Mario? Because they didn't take legal action against a C64 port? And what copyright are you talking about anyway? I thought this was a discussion about the Mario trademark?
This "you have to defend your IP" nonsense very quickly veers into propaganda in my estimation. Stated better here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
There is no realistic timeline in which the outcome you are suggesting comes to pass.
This "you have to defend your IP" nonsense very quickly veers into propaganda in my estimation. Stated better here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
There is no realistic timeline in which the outcome you are suggesting comes to pass.
I’m saying of course they are not going to approve of pirating of their active software, regardless of the channel.
Wait, pirating? I thought the issue here was supposed trademark infringement?
The person to whom you were responding just asked what sales Nintendo might plausibly be losing. I'm trying to understand if you're answering that question or just making a different point (ie, that even if they don't lose sales or suffer any loss at all, they'll still do this because reasons).
The person to whom you were responding just asked what sales Nintendo might plausibly be losing. I'm trying to understand if you're answering that question or just making a different point (ie, that even if they don't lose sales or suffer any loss at all, they'll still do this because reasons).
Well pirating is a high seas thing. Applying it to IP is basically rights holder propaganda. If you don't take issue with that usage it isn't a massive leap to apply it to trademark infringement.
The Rubicon has been crossed, it's piracy because there's a theoretical possibility that the rights holder isn't making as much money as the theoretical maximum.
The Rubicon has been crossed, it's piracy because there's a theoretical possibility that the rights holder isn't making as much money as the theoretical maximum.
Maybe I still have a C64 at home and don't want to switch to a Switch?
Yes, and your old NES cartridge is infringing because obviously you have to repurchase it every generation. You can't keep enjoying these games without the rights holder getting paid, and don't even think about trying to sell it.
Owning a game? The very idea.
Owning a game? The very idea.
It won’t, of course. But Nintendo has chosen to defend their trademarks always - which is a simple solution, doesn’t require anyone to make a decision “should we allow this or not”. This case might’ve been an easy call to allow, but by always doing this, for all cases, they don’t need internal discussions on more grey area instances.
It's probably related to trademarks: you lose a trademark if you don't enforce it. If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark, which would hurt them.
I hear that a lot but it's certainly not that black and white.
* Capcom for example allows fan games as long as you don't profit off them. There are a couple of Megaman games for example.
* Konami allowed the fan game "Castlevania: The Lecarde Chronicles 2" as long as they did not profit from the game.
* Valve allowed the HL fan game Prospect - https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/
And there are other examples out there. Nintendo could perfectly allow it under certain conditions. Did Sega not work for Sonic Mania with somebody who made sonic fan games for example?
* Capcom for example allows fan games as long as you don't profit off them. There are a couple of Megaman games for example.
* Konami allowed the fan game "Castlevania: The Lecarde Chronicles 2" as long as they did not profit from the game.
* Valve allowed the HL fan game Prospect - https://store.steampowered.com/app/399120/Prospekt/
And there are other examples out there. Nintendo could perfectly allow it under certain conditions. Did Sega not work for Sonic Mania with somebody who made sonic fan games for example?
> If they let this go, chances are they would lose the Super Mario trademark
You can't be serious. Are you saying that, sitting on a civil jury hearing a lawsuit at some future date, you'd conclude that Mario - one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world - is no longer a trademark of Nintendo because a third party made a C64 clone of the game?
I don't understand how you view this as the likely outcome. Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever.
> Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
You can't be serious. Are you saying that, sitting on a civil jury hearing a lawsuit at some future date, you'd conclude that Mario - one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world - is no longer a trademark of Nintendo because a third party made a C64 clone of the game?
I don't understand how you view this as the likely outcome. Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever.
> Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
> Are you saying that, sitting on a civil jury hearing a lawsuit at some future date, you'd conclude that Mario - one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world - is no longer a trademark of Nintendo because a third party made a C64 clone of the game?
No, but if hundreds or thousands of third parties are left free to brand their games "Super Mario" it may have an adverse effect on the claim to the mark, which when someone uses the mark to compete with Nintendo in an actually substantial way may be used to their defense.
No, but if hundreds or thousands of third parties are left free to brand their games "Super Mario" it may have an adverse effect on the claim to the mark, which when someone uses the mark to compete with Nintendo in an actually substantial way may be used to their defense.
> Nothing even close to this has ever happened ever.
Famous last words...
Famous last words...
But seriously for a second: can you describe how you actually envision this (or anything vaguely like this) ending in a civil verdict concluding abandonment of this (very well known) trademark?
Like, walk me through step-by-step how Mario becomes Escalator.
Like, walk me through step-by-step how Mario becomes Escalator.
Fitbit was sued by Fitbug and while likely would have had a strong claim of infringement the court found Fitbug lost its rights to enforce the mark against Fitbit because the delay in eneforcement.
Similarly Eat Right Foods lost a similar case for their mark “Eat Right” to Whole Foods for their delay in enforcing the mark.
The mark holder doesn’t have to take action in every infringement as you say, of course...but if it can be proven the mark holder knew or should have known that’s kind of the threshold legal issue.
Similarly Eat Right Foods lost a similar case for their mark “Eat Right” to Whole Foods for their delay in enforcing the mark.
The mark holder doesn’t have to take action in every infringement as you say, of course...but if it can be proven the mark holder knew or should have known that’s kind of the threshold legal issue.
The fact that you are having to reach a thousand miles just shows how ludicrous this is.
In both of those cases (and every other similar case), there was genuine confusion between marks. Whom in this case is Mario going to be confused for?
I just can't imagine anybody sitting on a jury and saying, "yeah, I"m going to find in favor of the would-be infringer here because Nintendo didn't go after that C64 port that one time in 2019." I mean, seriously?!
We're talking about Nintendo losing the trademark over Mario - a household name and likeness. Nobody is going to be confused about Mario, and nobody is going to start using the word "Mario" to generically mean a platform jumping character.
In both of those cases (and every other similar case), there was genuine confusion between marks. Whom in this case is Mario going to be confused for?
I just can't imagine anybody sitting on a jury and saying, "yeah, I"m going to find in favor of the would-be infringer here because Nintendo didn't go after that C64 port that one time in 2019." I mean, seriously?!
We're talking about Nintendo losing the trademark over Mario - a household name and likeness. Nobody is going to be confused about Mario, and nobody is going to start using the word "Mario" to generically mean a platform jumping character.
How was I reaching? I have two examples of companies who had trademarks, their marks were knowinglying infringed, they lost their otherwise legal right to enforce the mark for failure to do so timely.
>yeah, I"m going to find in favor of the would-be infringer here because Nintendo didn't go after that C64 port that one time in 2019."
That’s not how Law works. Your mixing confusion in the market place and laches...the jury doesn’t pick and decide what laws apply.
If I saw a T-shirt with Mario on it for example, or a Mario game...I would surely think the owners of the Mario marked either created or licensed the work...that’s the definition of confusion anyway, but that’s not the issue being discussed.
>yeah, I"m going to find in favor of the would-be infringer here because Nintendo didn't go after that C64 port that one time in 2019."
That’s not how Law works. Your mixing confusion in the market place and laches...the jury doesn’t pick and decide what laws apply.
If I saw a T-shirt with Mario on it for example, or a Mario game...I would surely think the owners of the Mario marked either created or licensed the work...that’s the definition of confusion anyway, but that’s not the issue being discussed.
> the jury doesn’t pick and decide what laws apply
Effectively, you are right. But technically, they can. Via jury nullification. But if you know about this, then you typically get immediately weeded out during the selection process.
Effectively, you are right. But technically, they can. Via jury nullification. But if you know about this, then you typically get immediately weeded out during the selection process.
> How was I reaching? I have two examples of companies who had trademarks, their marks were knowinglying infringed, they lost their otherwise legal right to enforce the mark for failure to do so timely.
You picked two examples where confusion over the nature of the mark was the turning point in the case. I ask again: whom is Mario being confused for here?
> That’s not how Law works.
This is precisely how civil law works. Precisely. The fact that you cherry-picked a case that ended in summary judgment does not change this.
You picked two examples where confusion over the nature of the mark was the turning point in the case. I ask again: whom is Mario being confused for here?
> That’s not how Law works.
This is precisely how civil law works. Precisely. The fact that you cherry-picked a case that ended in summary judgment does not change this.
>This is precisely how civil law works.
How many trademark cases have you litigated?
How many cases have you won/lost on summary judgment? SJ is taking all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party they still lose as a matter of law...a jury wasn’t even needed to make a finding of fact, because the prevailing parties were entitled to judgement as a matter of law. It’s pretty damn persuasive.
Who is Mario being confused for? Again not how the law works at all...no one is confusing Mario, the infringing Mario is being confused for a legit Mario, that would be a part of the infringement claim. Again if I start making Mario T-shirt’s the public would be confused about the origin and think it’s legit product...why wouldn’t they? But it’s not it’s an infringing product trading off the good will of the mark, you bet any infringers would defend a trademark claim by showing the Mario trademark owner has abondoned the mark, and present evidence of the owners knowing people copied the Mario games/marks and they didn’t take any action to enforce it.
How many trademark cases have you litigated?
How many cases have you won/lost on summary judgment? SJ is taking all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party they still lose as a matter of law...a jury wasn’t even needed to make a finding of fact, because the prevailing parties were entitled to judgement as a matter of law. It’s pretty damn persuasive.
Who is Mario being confused for? Again not how the law works at all...no one is confusing Mario, the infringing Mario is being confused for a legit Mario, that would be a part of the infringement claim. Again if I start making Mario T-shirt’s the public would be confused about the origin and think it’s legit product...why wouldn’t they? But it’s not it’s an infringing product trading off the good will of the mark, you bet any infringers would defend a trademark claim by showing the Mario trademark owner has abondoned the mark, and present evidence of the owners knowing people copied the Mario games/marks and they didn’t take any action to enforce it.
> It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously
I’m not arguing the truth of the claim, but consider: if a lawyer advises you to defend your trademarks and that you could lose them if you don’t, would you risk it? There’s no obvious upside to being nice in cases like this.
I’m not arguing the truth of the claim, but consider: if a lawyer advises you to defend your trademarks and that you could lose them if you don’t, would you risk it? There’s no obvious upside to being nice in cases like this.
>There’s no obvious upside to being nice in cases like this.
Sure there is. Good PR. Your lawyer will advise you to do all sorts of things that are PR suicide to avoid nearly non-existent legal risks if nothing more than to cover themselves.
One of the most important jobs an executive has is to rein in the lawyers to keep them from publicly embarrassing the company.
Sure there is. Good PR. Your lawyer will advise you to do all sorts of things that are PR suicide to avoid nearly non-existent legal risks if nothing more than to cover themselves.
One of the most important jobs an executive has is to rein in the lawyers to keep them from publicly embarrassing the company.
Defending trademarks includes saying "this is our trademark but we'll allow you to continue using it so long as you're non commercial and making it clear that this is an unofficial build".
I'm no copyright lawyer but couldn't they have issued a licence to use the trademark to the author if this was the case?
They could have supported this as a homage to the franchise, supported their fans creativity, and gotten lots of free publicity to boot.
They could have supported this as a homage to the franchise, supported their fans creativity, and gotten lots of free publicity to boot.
Here we see not the absence of a way, but of a will.
That does not explain why less draconic companies still get to keep their trademarks.
It's not true. If it were then any company could easily give a no-cost license, take-down is in no way a requirement.
As far as I know, the current Nintendo Switch Online subscription that is bringing Nintendo money right now has a port of that old NES game as one of the games you get to play for free as long as you keep paying the subscription. Nintendo can easily argue that having a freely available port you can play lowers the value of their Online subscription service.
How many (working!) C64 are in circulation though?
A random lawyer might not consider that, but if anyone thought this through? I don't think there's any measurable impact on any Nintendo business, at all. Maybe, _maybe_ the inverse: Support a fan project like this and the middle-aged C64 fan base - even those not owning one anymore - might be even more inclined to buy Nintendo products?
A random lawyer might not consider that, but if anyone thought this through? I don't think there's any measurable impact on any Nintendo business, at all. Maybe, _maybe_ the inverse: Support a fan project like this and the middle-aged C64 fan base - even those not owning one anymore - might be even more inclined to buy Nintendo products?
A better analysis might also be to consider emulators as well. Since virtually any desktop system of any recent vintage can run a C64 emulator capable of running this game, the actual number of "compatible systems" may be much higher.
This is more to say that a defense of the authors of this port may not want to make such an argument.
This is more to say that a defense of the authors of this port may not want to make such an argument.
There are already abundant NES and SNES emulators for just about every reasonably-modern desktop and mobile platform. The popular games like Super Mario Brothers are almost always the first to be used in compatibility tests.
Needless to say, virtually any desktop system of any recent vintage can already run pretty much the entirety of the NES and SNES library; that ship has not only already sailed, but has circumnavigated the globe.
A C64 port of a Mario game is absolutely at most a blip in the increase in portability. If one's goal is "I want to play Super Mario Brothers on my PC", then that player's probably gonna reach for RetroArch and one of the various NES-emulating libretro cores instead of reaching specifically for a C64 emulator to play a presumably-buggier-and-uglier port of it to an entirely different system.
And there are numerous SMB roms floating around on the Internet. That ship has sailed, circumnavigated, and sailed and circumnavigated again while crewed by the descendants of the original crew - that is, a C64 port does not make that situation any "worse" for Nintendo.
Needless to say, virtually any desktop system of any recent vintage can already run pretty much the entirety of the NES and SNES library; that ship has not only already sailed, but has circumnavigated the globe.
A C64 port of a Mario game is absolutely at most a blip in the increase in portability. If one's goal is "I want to play Super Mario Brothers on my PC", then that player's probably gonna reach for RetroArch and one of the various NES-emulating libretro cores instead of reaching specifically for a C64 emulator to play a presumably-buggier-and-uglier port of it to an entirely different system.
And there are numerous SMB roms floating around on the Internet. That ship has sailed, circumnavigated, and sailed and circumnavigated again while crewed by the descendants of the original crew - that is, a C64 port does not make that situation any "worse" for Nintendo.
Emulators have been SMB compatible for decades. A C64 Port adds nothing in that area.
The emulator alone is not an issue, and indeed you have NES emulators that are as, if not more, capable.
But free NES ROMs download websites or equivalent are illegal.
Here, the combination of a port+the existence of an emulator provides a way to play the game without honoring the copyright (in fact, even the limited pool of actual C64 is an issue), even if it's a bit convoluted and a lot of work to play one game.
As much as this port is a cool achievement, and probably actually helps cultivating the nostalgia around the game, Nintendo has every right to issue this DMCA.
That being said, the usual copyright duration seems a little excessive for old computer programs and games.
But free NES ROMs download websites or equivalent are illegal.
Here, the combination of a port+the existence of an emulator provides a way to play the game without honoring the copyright (in fact, even the limited pool of actual C64 is an issue), even if it's a bit convoluted and a lot of work to play one game.
As much as this port is a cool achievement, and probably actually helps cultivating the nostalgia around the game, Nintendo has every right to issue this DMCA.
That being said, the usual copyright duration seems a little excessive for old computer programs and games.
But is a port running on the Commodore _really_ competing?
It's only playable by a small slice of players.
If anything, it shows fans are pasionate about the franchise and it's generated a lot of buzz around it in the last few days.
If anything, it shows fans are pasionate about the franchise and it's generated a lot of buzz around it in the last few days.
Bummer. I was fully prepared to exhibit this amazing bit of work at my new retro-computing exhibit [1], and I expect it would have been inspiring for a lot of local indie game developers to have had the chance to see it in person ..
Well, instead, I'll just focus on some of the other gem releases of the retro-dev scene, and fortunately there are a LOT of other great works being produced for these old machines - of limited commercial value - but massive cultural worth. Still, seeing a near-perfect port of Super Mario Bros. on the old C64 is an amazing thing, and fills me full of inspiring thoughts. Bummer, Nintendo.
[1] - https://subotron.com/7635-timetron-2019/
Well, instead, I'll just focus on some of the other gem releases of the retro-dev scene, and fortunately there are a LOT of other great works being produced for these old machines - of limited commercial value - but massive cultural worth. Still, seeing a near-perfect port of Super Mario Bros. on the old C64 is an amazing thing, and fills me full of inspiring thoughts. Bummer, Nintendo.
[1] - https://subotron.com/7635-timetron-2019/
Yeah, Nintendo seems to be pretty intense with this stuff (sometimes very unfairly, like in this instance with Modern Vintage Gamer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtaFU2ky9E)
I grabbed a copy of it if anyone’s interested.
Where do I sign up?
Thank you!
You're welcome. I respect Nintendo. I also respect the indie game community and fans who have kept retro gaming alive all these years. I believe the two can combine efforts some day. I hope you enjoy the game.
Wow, the Slashdot thread on this was actually more informative. I think that's a first for me.
The issue is trademark: if they don't defend it, they could lose it. It's really that simple.
The issue is trademark: if they don't defend it, they could lose it. It's really that simple.
How does DMCA apply to trademark? I thought the DMCA was only about copyright.
I know people are arguing about how much a port to a 30 year old system could really harm them, but I think it's a twofold issue of precedent leading to dilution: If they allow this, what about a port of (same or other mario game) to (same or other platform)?
Please read the thread, where your "defend it or lose it" point has been rebutted several times.
They did the same with a fan-made remake of Metroid 2, though that was Nintendo USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM2R
http://metroid2remake.blogspot.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM2R
http://metroid2remake.blogspot.com/
It shows the C64 could run NES type games.
Gaina Sisters did SMB first but also got sued by Nintendo.
Gaina Sisters did SMB first but also got sued by Nintendo.
What is another strategy around this aside from release quickly and hopefully gains enough following.
We see this with Disney, Star Trek but not to this extent.
We see this with Disney, Star Trek but not to this extent.
Make Super Tux Brothers or something that does not look like SMB.
Great Giana Sisters
...which also saw action from Nintendo.
According to the German Wikipedia article
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Giana_S...
there was no lawsuit between Rainbow Arts and Nintendo, but only a threat of legal steps by Nintendo, which lead to the situation that the existing copies were withdrawn from being commercially available.
Also the alleged lawsuit by Nintendo made The Great Giana Sisters world-famous, even though it was - as remarked - not sold anymore.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Giana_S...
there was no lawsuit between Rainbow Arts and Nintendo, but only a threat of legal steps by Nintendo, which lead to the situation that the existing copies were withdrawn from being commercially available.
Also the alleged lawsuit by Nintendo made The Great Giana Sisters world-famous, even though it was - as remarked - not sold anymore.
You could just play Super Tux, which is essentially that. But that's not quite as cool as being the same thing, but for an unsupported platform.
Release it as a program that patches a Super Mario Bros ROM until it functions as a C64 ROM?
[deleted]
A lot of people here a like "Nintendo hates their fans", but seriously, this is a product that Nintendo is currently selling (Well, technically renting to subscribers) why should they stand idle as people pirate it?
Any in-game footage of a Nintendo game on youtube can be flagged by Nintendo (of Japan usually) at any time. They don't really check for fair use beforehand.