By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why It's Morally Okay To Pirate All Of Nintendo's Games (The Jimquisition)

 

I reported this thread for copyright violation.

Yep 50 100.00%
 
Total:50

That's not how morals work Jim. A moral is a highly held personal value, they don't change based on the actions of someone or something else.

His logic is horribly twisted



Around the Network
Acevil said:
vivster said:

Claiming revenue from content creators that are using content under fair use is illegal as well. But try to sue Nintendo on it. The issue why this hasn't escalated yet is that youtube allows it. It allows companies like Nintendo to abuse the law without any repercussions.

It's not morally gray. It's morally wrong.

I think it is morally gray, namely since it is google platform and google has authority to enforce it, not Nintendo or the content creators. 

See now you're describing legality again when it's about morality. "Legally gray" != "morally gray".



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

aLkaLiNE said:

That's not how morals work Jim. A moral is a highly held personal value, they don't change based on the actions of someone or something else.

His logic is horribly twisted

So you're saying Nintendo has no morals pertaining copyright law?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Acevil said:

I think it is morally gray, namely since it is google platform and google has authority to enforce it, not Nintendo or the content creators. 

See now you're describing legality again when it's about morality. "Legally gray" != "morally gray".

Yes, and to me that is how I define this case of morality, with the legality of the whole thing, until someone can prove legality against nintendo in this case, I will consider it morally gray, not morally wrong. Adding this part to this as well Namely since I believe content creators are morally gray for uploading complete playthroughts of games, sometimes even without commentary. 



 

Acevil said:
vivster said:

See now you're describing legality again when it's about morality. "Legally gray" != "morally gray".

Yes, and to me that is how I define this case of morality, with the legality of the whole thing. 

Ouch. Well that's one way to look at it. But I'd rather not associate with people who think everything is morally fine as long as it's legal.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
vivster said:
Helloplite said:
Why are we listening to this dinosaur still? The ethical considerations are fairly simple actually when it comes to this:

Is it easy to acquire the original console/hardware and software, at a logical price for the consumer? YES/NO
Are the original developers still around? YES/NO
Does the software in question still get sold, digitally or physically? YES/NO
Are the original developers likely to receive any income from sales of said software in sale? YES/NO

If you answered NO to all (or at the very least, the last) of these, feel free to emulate. The law is often unreasonable, chaotic, or simply lacking merit.

Also, a bonus rule:

Do you own the original software/hardware? YES/NO

If you answered YES in the bonus question, feel free to emulate with no moral concerns.

You obviously didn't watch the video. None of it was about actual pirating. It's about Nintendo's blatant disregard of the copyright law by ignoring fair use yet refering to the same law when it's pestering content creators for their fair use.

Yes, I didn't watch it. I will and will amend my response accordingly, but I have a certain sort of distaste for Jimquisition, even at those few instances when I happen to agree with him. Fair use is not a simple legal concept, which is why many times people end in courts over the intepretation of the doctrine. In particular, article (1) is quite restrictive, and posting stuff (e.g. on YouTube) does not necessarily mean it is fair use (in other words, do not associate fair use with common use -- common use is not necessarily fair use). Article (3) also complicates things, essentially since to reproduce a videogame you need to use substantial amounts of assets/portions of the work (e.g. graphics + sound + depiction of gameplay). Finally for (4), if the product can be monetized Nintendo can still claim that it is not fair use, as long as it does not violate the First Amendment.

Fair use, for the most part, entails 'transformative' use. For most videogames, this is a very vague thing as we are not in agreement over what constitutes 'transformative' use of a video game. As someone who works in academia, I am fairly aware of fair use, as I come across it every time I have to do anything, from printing a chapter of a book for my students, to using copyright material as educational tools. Even the fact that I work in education does not make this a simple thing. This is not just simply 'copyright law' stuff.




vivster said:
Acevil said:

Yes, and to me that is how I define this case of morality, with the legality of the whole thing. 

Ouch. Well that's one way to look at it. But I'd rather not associate with people who think everything is morally fine as long as it's legal.

I did use the word this case. 



 

Acevil said:
vivster said:

Claiming revenue from content creators that are using content under fair use is illegal as well. But try to sue Nintendo on it. The issue why this hasn't escalated yet is that youtube allows it. It allows companies like Nintendo to abuse the law without any repercussions.

It's not morally gray. It's morally wrong.

I think it is morally gray, namely since it is google platform and google has authority to enforce it, not Nintendo or the content creators. Again until prescendent is set with court case against nintendo, which they lose. I will not say morally wrong. Namely since I believe content creators are morally gray for uploading complete playthroughts of games, sometimes even without commentary. 

This. I can understand Angry Joe when he gets made for getting flagged when he does a review and it has game clips.

But most youtubers bitching are those that are posting full lets plays of a game. Let's plays/playthrough/walkthroughs are in no way fair use in my opinon. They are equivalent to posting a full movie online, which you can't do. You will notice, those that do a "let's watch" or wahtever they call it. It's just a pic of their heads and you can hear the audio of the movie. No actual video. I don't get how video gamers can get away with showing the game full on playing. Espeically as you said, some don't even add comentary. And then to bitch when they get flagged. It's laughable.



Acevil said:
vivster said:

Ouch. Well that's one way to look at it. But I'd rather not associate with people who think everything is morally fine as long as it's legal.

I did use the word this case. 

Yeah, but who knows what other cases there are.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Acevil said:

I did use the word this case. 

Yeah, but who knows what other cases there are.

Well for example I am for fair use, if it was someone doing a mock of Nintendo Press Conference. See that is fair use to me. Not collecting revenue on gameplay videos of an entire game being played or movie or TV Show. If it was proven in court that it was, I would agree that is morally wrong not morally gray. However Piracy is morally wrong and also very illegal.