00:00
00:00
Zelazon
Retired music designer and retired tournament gamer.
Commentator for current state of gaming.

Joined on 1/14/24

Level:
2
Exp Points:
32 / 50
Exp Rank:
> 100,000
Vote Power:
2.33 votes
Rank:
Civilian
Global Rank:
> 100,000
Blams:
0
Saves:
0
B/P Bonus:
0%
Whistle:
Normal

Altering these settings may filter what you see.

Latest News

More

After Nintendo's whole squabble regarding the Switch Emulator and the takedown of Yuzu, it was the best decision to sell my Switch at the time as a pure demonstration of their pure ignorance of the blatant disregard of the gaming community in general.


As someone who has been on Newgrounds for years, I have a unique understanding of the rules here from the expectations of what one must do to create a copyright-free song, how to use sample properly without triggering a deletion, and act in a professional manner upholding laws and enforcing regulations from a regulatory standpoint. People trying to come up to me in the past regarding copyright law only found themselves in a bind because I can clearly state what can or cannot be enforced.


Nintendo themselves have not done many things properly for years, and they legal entity status is questionable at best. I've looked at documents and I'll have to post it to just go through why they failed to demonstrate why they deserve no shred of legal protections:


iu_1176038_20717386.webp


They have completed their filing in 2007 (wow), regarding the legal filing of their company. They state they had protection to do court filings and all the nonsense for ensure their trademark for their company, but from a professional standpoint, if they cannot establish for your previous games that you owned the legal trademarks for these games, Nintendo's lawyers cannot actually protect the company and cannot demonstrate an actual capacity of being in applicable status of actually owning their own games.


They get beat by this understanding all the time. They stated they filed patents with the trademark office, but I'm going to show that their patents have not been protected because Reggie Fils-Aimé was support be the one filing the with the Secretary of State with his signature or it was supposed to be Satoru Iwata or Shigeru Miyamoto who is supposed to represent the signature of the company:


iu_1176039_20717386.png

iu_1176040_20717386.png


These are public documents that are available for the public to view, and it up to Nintendo to have the properly filing to ensure the protection of their intellectual property. If you do not have your legal entity in place properly, you can have all of your supporting documents knocked out because you didn't legal protect the company in a way that was baseline.


Why I also bring this up is because historically, I had done my research on Nintendo for years; they were a company that was established for Hanafuda trading/playing cards, and a lot of their history is essentially entertainment for the Japanese community and society. It makes sense that when you look at it from an historic perspective, they engagement into the American market has a tinge of not knowing the legal framework, but it has been nearly 30 or so years ago in which they have justification of recertifying; they should have had the original documents.


They've been around too long and too much of a power player to be given any sort of leeway when coming from an issues of looking at their filings and seeing that there are too many gaps of judgement when trying to sue a lot of American consumers regarding the use of their products. People have states that they can do X, Y, and Z, regarding the use of emulators, but there has been no legal standing as far back as I could see how emulator use could get one sue as Nintendo tried to sue consumers who actually owned the product. The best example is how one could be sue for playing the emulator version of Link to the Past when they actually owned Link to the Past and a Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It's one of those arguments that you can loose if they still have the current cartridge of the game.


Nintendo was going to loose this argument when it came to Super Smash Bros. Melee. Many of us had bought the game through Ebay, Amazon, Gamestop, Play n Trade, and so on, and a lot of consumers were of legal age when it came to purchasing their own games. I bought my own copy of Brawl on release date, so the assumptions that we don't own the games is farfetched. When I bought Metroid Prime Hunters, the only way you could get good at the game is to legally own it because it gives you full capacity of the game where the emulators take so much of the content and control away that Metroid Prime Hunters was invalid as a need to play on the emulator. Being accuse of being a thief when we owned the game was simply ignorant and has been for years.


I get it. They're trying to make a profit and trying to ensure their stakeholders are happy. At some point, however, you get into a bind where Steam is more viable and you can just buy it from the store without feeling like you didn't pay for 300+ games. If Nintendo sold their stuff on Steam (or equivalent), then there would be nothing to talk about. It's a stupid argument and deserve no attention.


Addendum:


People make the gross accusation that buying the console come directly from the company; If a consumer purchases a console from Best Buy, Target, or other shopping stores or plazas, they do not have to demonstrate that they are the legal owner because the store is the one who holds the legal protections with the consumer.


Latest Audio

Subscribe to RSS Feed