Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo wins 12 mil from loveroms in lawsuit

 

XD84 said:

Do they even possess 12 million?

It's quite likely that they have nowhere near that.  The amount doesn't really matter as long as it's enough to ruin the accused.  It's possible that they'll declare bankruptcy and Nintendo will take much less than that, perhaps even a fraction of the total.  Everyone involved would be aware of that when the settlement was proposed. 

The point is really to send a message that they are willing to destroy someone's life over this.  

That's the part that I hate, that they're claiming this "caused Nintendo irreparable injury."  I would have been okay with it if the settlement had been simply to close down the website forever plus the seizure of all assets used in its operation.   

Mandalore76 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Ugh, this was one of my go-to ROM sites, now it is dead because Nintendo is shitty. Basically every other publisher is open to ROM's of 15+ year old games, or at least tolerates them. If Nintendo keeps up this war it will kill older niche games from Nintendo platforms, those have no hope of ever getting ports, showing up in mini consoles, or showing up on Nintendo's online service. There are few surviving physical copies of those niche games, without ROM's they will essentially cease to exist. 

Most people will never get to own a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spider, but I don't think it would go over well if I opened up a car dealership called "Love Stolen Cars".  

Terrible analogy.  If a car is stolen, then the owner loses the use of that car, plus any ability to sell it or make a profit on it in any way.  A better analogy would be if someone started making replicas without permission.  



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Mandalore76 said:

Most people will never get to own a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spider, but I don't think it would go over well if I opened up a car dealership called "Love Stolen Cars".  

Really poor analogy. Nobody makes money off of ROM's of 15+ year old out of circulation games, and the publishers lose no money either because those games are no longer available new. Comparing the Emulation of 15+ year old consoles to modern day game piracy just doesn't work. Nintendo just struck a huge blow against game preservation efforts, because they just set a precedent that is causing other ROM sites to close. 

This has nothing to do with game preservation.  Nintendo is protecting the rights to their own IPs.  And yes, people still do make money off 15+ year old games.  See NES Classic, SNES Classic, Flashback Consoles, previous iterations of Virtual Console, etc.  Nintendo, and @Games did go through the trouble of making sure they went through the proper licensing channels to put games on those systems for a reason.  If the ROM sites were these altruistic, philanthropic entities selflessly concerned only with preserving niches games that aren't available in the wild that you make them out to be; there wouldn't have been any Nintendo IP's on those sites in the first place.  And then, Nintendo wouldn't have a case against them.  



pokoko said:

 

XD84 said:

Do they even possess 12 million?

It's quite likely that they have nowhere near that.  The amount doesn't really matter as long as it's enough to ruin the accused.  It's possible that they'll declare bankruptcy and Nintendo will take much less than that, perhaps even a fraction of the total.  Everyone involved would be aware of that when the settlement was proposed. 

The point is really to send a message that they are willing to destroy someone's life over this.  

That's the part that I hate, that they're claiming this "caused Nintendo irreparable injury."  I would have been okay with it if the settlement had been simply to close down the website forever plus the seizure of all assets used in its operation.   

Mandalore76 said:

Most people will never get to own a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spider, but I don't think it would go over well if I opened up a car dealership called "Love Stolen Cars".  

Terrible analogy.  If a car is stolen, then the owner loses the use of that car, plus any ability to sell it or make a profit on it in any way.  A better analogy would be if someone started making replicas without permission.  

Should we also fret over the life of a bank robber being ruined when they get caught?  Whose fault is it that they chose not to make an honest living?  There are risks involved when you decide to take short-cuts in life by profiting off of things you have no legal right to.



Close the fucking site and call it a day, charging millions of dollars out of the onwers is just incredible greed, it won't really matter for Nintendo but can simply destroy those people lives.



Mandalore76 said:
pokoko said:

 

It's quite likely that they have nowhere near that.  The amount doesn't really matter as long as it's enough to ruin the accused.  It's possible that they'll declare bankruptcy and Nintendo will take much less than that, perhaps even a fraction of the total.  Everyone involved would be aware of that when the settlement was proposed. 

The point is really to send a message that they are willing to destroy someone's life over this.  

That's the part that I hate, that they're claiming this "caused Nintendo irreparable injury."  I would have been okay with it if the settlement had been simply to close down the website forever plus the seizure of all assets used in its operation.   

Terrible analogy.  If a car is stolen, then the owner loses the use of that car, plus any ability to sell it or make a profit on it in any way.  A better analogy would be if someone started making replicas without permission.  

Should we also fret over the life of a bank robber being ruined when they get caught?  Whose fault is it that they chose not to make an honest living?  There are risks involved when you decide to take short-cuts in life by profiting off of things you have no legal right to.

Are you doing bad analogies on purpose or something?  



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
Close the fucking site and call it a day, charging millions of dollars out of the onwers is just incredible greed, it won't really matter for Nintendo but can simply destroy those people lives.

They agreed to pay it, which makes one wonder how much they were profiting from the ad revenue.  You have seen the potential on YouTube before their new policy changes.

 

Free to download or not, they were still profiting off of Nintendo's IPs.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

1. Providing a service like this is kinda asking for trouble, especially if you make money on it through ads or other means. That said...

2. I don't think it makes a difference legally (could of course differ from nation to nation) but when games aren't actually sold anywhere (and no, I don't count the second hand market) then I personally have no issues with sites providing roms or iso's for those games. If the maker wants to continue to make money on those titles they should make them available for purchase.

3. 12 million is overkill.



pokoko said:
Mandalore76 said:

Should we also fret over the life of a bank robber being ruined when they get caught?  Whose fault is it that they chose not to make an honest living?  There are risks involved when you decide to take short-cuts in life by profiting off of things you have no legal right to.

Are you doing bad analogies on purpose or something?  

Are you purposely ignoring the point that someone took a shortcut in life to profit off of someone else's property and got caught?  When you use someone else's property to try and make a profit for yourself, the repercussions of getting caught are yours to deal with.  No reason to lament that.



Mandalore76 said:

Most people will never get to own a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spider, but I don't think it would go over well if I opened up a car dealership called "Love Stolen Cars".  

Mandalore76 said:

Should we also fret over the life of a bank robber being ruined when they get caught?  Whose fault is it that they chose not to make an honest living?  There are risks involved when you decide to take short-cuts in life by profiting off of things you have no legal right to.

Oh, your comparisons are just so brilliant. I have another comparison for this situation: It's like a pharma company suing a maker of a generic drug without patent of said company to save lives it in third world countries which are not rich enough to get the original medicine. How evil of the maker of the genric drug and how noble of the pharma company to stop that.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

forest-spirit said:
1. Providing a service like this is kinda asking for trouble, especially if you make money on it through ads or other means. That said...

2. I don't think it makes a difference legally (could of course differ from nation to nation) but when games aren't actually sold anywhere (and no, I don't count the second hand market) then I personally have no issues with sites providing roms or iso's for those games. If the maker wants to continue to make money on those titles they should make them available for purchase.

3. 12 million is overkill.

Super Mario World, Mario Kart, Super Mario Bros. 3 were all specifically named in the lawsuit.  Nintendo has made these available for purchase on multiple hardware iterations.  There is "zero" argument for these titles to be necessary to appear on a ROM site.