Hacker News Reader

Comment by autoexec | Hacker News Reader

I love projects like this. Very cool, but only possible by completely disregarding the fact that this is illegal under copyright law. As it is, I expect this person has already painted a sizable target on their back and there's a very good change they'll be sent a take-down notice once Nintendo becomes aware.

I think projects like this should be allowed to exist and that eventually people will grow very tired of how restrictive copyright law is and demand changes, but until that happens, I hope these types of projects continue to be created and spread in violation of the law for as long as possible until the lawyers finally come after them.

It's better that we see what kinds of things we could have without oppressive copyright laws and be upset when they are taken from us than for people to refuse to start cool projects just because they are doomed to be shutdown.

View on HN

People are already tired, but there’s simply not enough of them to effect any change. Especially when opposing large, well funded lobbies that are de facto writing the relevant laws in the US and EU.

I don’t know how we’re going to be able to change this. I’ve voted for parties that are the most outspoken on this issue all my life. But somehow this never makes it into any actual policy.

I’ve even on multiple occasions called my representatives as parts of grass roots lobbies against new trade agreements or laws that would set us back even further. But even when such grass roots campaigns were successful, the same proposal would just return at most a few years later and the grass roots oppositions would get tired of trying to stop them.

What else can we do?

>What else can we do?

Unironically, learn about the theory of politics and organize with others. The current political system will always act in the interest of business, it's basically an evolutionary system.

There is never going to be a financial insensitive to change how copyright law works because it makes companies a lot of money, and if one representative attempts to change the law, these companies can use that wealth to sponsor a challenger to that individual (most likely in the primaries for their next race).

It's dangerous to actively put any policy in place which goes against the interest of industry. But it isn't impossible, remember the government broke up Standard Oil, ultimately they do have the power to change laws if the political will is there.

> But it isn't impossible, remember the government broke up Standard Oil, ultimately they do have the power to change laws if the political will is there.

I can't confidently say that you're wrong and that such change is impossible (I honestly don't know and have made the choice to be optimistic), but I think it's fair to say that our political system and the environment it operates in has changed dramatically since 1911. Many of the changes we've seen since then were orchestrated by industry with the specific goal of limiting the possibility or effectiveness of the government interfering in their activities. The brake up of Standard Oil, or even Ma Bell, may not be a very good indicator of what is possible today.

Doomerism will always get us nowhere and is a tool of those who benefit from the status quo. Being optimistic and seeing a different future from that of today is a useful action towards achieving those goals, even if it may seem difficult. The political circumstances of an entire nation can change in a few days.

> What else can we do?

Basically nothing. We are living in a simulation of "rule of the people". But the system is built so that basically nothing changes for those with actual power.

Call my a disillusioned cynic but I believe democracy is the theatrical play that is being performed to make us believe we have some bit of influence.

> But even when such grass roots campaigns were successful, the same proposal would just return at most a few years later and the grass roots oppositions would get tired of trying to stop them.

If such things succeed they are an anomaly and the system over time evolves to find ways to ensure this firm of influence from the popolus will cease to exist. The current iteration you describe is crude but effective.

My idealistic heart would love for a way out that actually had a chance of success, but I just can't see it.

You are right. The only way is to get rich and buy your own politicians or perhaps crowdfund.

In the process of getting rich you will one day discover that your interests align now with those you once opposed as you are now part of the club. Welcome to the ruling class! (That is if you even get the chance to make it up.)

As for crowdfunding, the wealth distribution is such that even if the bottom 50 percent of the population in the US all united, they could be outspend by the top one percent 16 times overs. On a global scale it is even worse.

That seems like an odd argument to be making in a discussion about a cool project someone made despite it infringing copyright. Maybe copyright laws don't put people off in the way that you're claiming they do.

> Maybe copyright laws don't put people off in the way that you're claiming they do.

Or maybe there would be many more of such projects if people weren't put off from starting them in the first place by copyright laws.

Or maybe there would be many more of such projects if people weren't put off from starting them in the first place by copyright laws.

Maybe, but based on the evidence we have that's just speculation. Perhaps copyright and fear of litigation isn't a common reason why people don't make things. As we see from the link this thread is about, people do make things using other people's IP.

Maybe copyright laws push people who are concerned about being sued to make original works instead of making nothing as you're asserting. That would actually be very a positive outcome, and arguably a great reason to keep copyrights. After all, there's nothing stopping people making things. The only thing they're prevented from doing is using someone else's IP.

We have lots of evidence of chilling effects from copyright law.

I suspect that many of the people who are creating things which violate copyright law are simply unaware that what they are doing is against the law (they feel that they have rights which they actually don't) or they misunderstand the law (See: "No Copyright Intended" descriptions on youtube videos).

Some certainly also think that enforcement is lax enough that they won't be caught, or at least not before others have mirrored the content, or that they won't face meaningful consequences when they are caught, but I think we absolutely cannot say that the existence of copyright violations proves that the laws aren't hurting us by preventing popular original works from being made.

> The only thing they're prevented from doing is using someone else's IP.

Consider what happened with blurred lines (see https://mcpherson-llp.com/articles/crushing-creativity-the-b...) We know copyright law hurts people that aren't using anyone else's IP.

This guy has a lot to say on the problems with the idea that using other people's IP is a bad thing in the first place:

https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_laws_that_choke_cr...

Earlier in their statement they mentioned that Nintendo is very likely to issue a takedown notice of it because it violates copyright.

Yes, and even with that understanding it didn't stop them making it.

I think they meant that we would have more because of all the ones that disappeared due to take down requests.

Not just that we'd have more cool projects like this because we wouldn't have lost the ones that have been taken down, but because we'd gain all the cool projects made by people who didn't or wont create something cool like this in the first place because they were afraid of the legal liability it opens them up to, or even because despite all the best intentions they can't navigate the system required.

See the "Copyright & distribution:" section from https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html for an example from an artist who almost wasn't able to make their work at all because of the problems. It was only extraordinary sacrifice that allowed that artist to bring her creative (and I think highly entertaining) work into the world, and that creator is convinced that a bar set that high leaves a lot of artists unable to clear the hurdle.

Not disputing what you are saying but I think the problem is also Nintendo here. Other companies love it when their players make projects like this with their work, and I've heard Sega even hired people who made fan remakes of Sonic. But for some peculiar reason Nintendo seem to absolutely determined to defend their intellectual property. What's annoying is that stuff like this isn't threatening their business model at all, and it could also be beneficial to them by raising interest in their product. But their decision to take revenue off YouTubers years ago was hugely detrimental to them as it lead many YouTubers just to avoid covering Nintendo altogether, and it's insane it took them so long to u-turn on it.

> Not disputing what you are saying but I think the problem is also Nintendo here. Other companies love it when their players make projects like this with their work

I agree that Nintendo deserves criticism for their aggressive enforcement of the law, but the real problem is the law that allows for it. I agree Nintendo's actions probably hurt them more than helps them, but clearly they feel otherwise. Fix the laws and it fixes the problem at its source.

He didn’t disregard copyright. He believed it is fair use to use screenshots.

There is a BOTW map app[1] from which the developper makes some money, I assume it to be illegal too but Nintendo has not taken it down. Maybe Nintendo allows that kind of side project to be made after all?

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.SoftwareNo...

Looks like Fair Use (tm) to me.

It doesn't really matter if it is or not. There's no way it'd ever get to court to decide whether it is or not if Nintendo choose to issue a takedown. The law is very one-sided in favor of corporations with deep pockets.

> There's no way it'd ever get to court to decide whether it is or not if Nintendo choose to issue a takedown. The law is very one-sided in favor of corporations with deep pockets.

This makes no sense. The law has nothing to say about anything until whatever it is has already gotten into court.

Or maybe we could respect the rights of the copyright holders? If you create a virtual world, and you don't want other people to run off with your creation, than maybe just maybe one should respect that? It's their world, you are a guest, respect their rules man.

Why don't you make your own immersive world and make a website about that? Why not make a website about another game that does not oppose fan projects?

IPR are not natural rights. In theory at least, we (the demos) give artificial monopolies on the basis that they encourage creativity and innovation.

If you sell or publish your work, and especially if people buy it from you, then it becomes part of the culture of our societies. It is right then that you lose some control, especially if you've made enough money to support you for a period long enough to make a new work/innovation -- it would be stupid of us to make IPR so strong that people who had been supported to become creators/innovators were then encouraged to stop.

Culture works in a space where shared experiences are remixed, where past cultural experiences are reworked.

We need to respect the givers of those IPR rights and respect shared culture a little more IMO.

This is of course my own personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com