Well yeah, as the owners they have the exclusive right to determine what's okay. They're just following the rules as they've been laid out by centuries of corporate lobbying for more exploitable copyright laws. Those are what we need to focus on if we want more fair use of intellectual property that the rights holder has already sufficiently profited from - the thing that such protections were initially meant to ensure to a much more reasonable extent.

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You had me in the first half ngl (more like first sentence but close enough)

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But they DO have the exclusive right. People want to be told the world is different - that it's better - but if we want to change it we need to see it for what it is. If we say "They don't have the right!" before we've done the work necessary to strip them of the right, then we'll never even understand how to start fixing this broken system.

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I completely agree with that take, I was just making a joke about how the first sentence reads like the start of a comment that's about to defend Nintendo

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They aren't the owners of most of the games though, did they ask, in writing, all of the rightsholders for the games they made?

Did they ask the artists if it was ok to re-use their work in a 'new title'? (according to Nintendo, emulation is transformative)

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Would you want to enter a legal battle with Nintendo? This system is broken in a lot of different ways, one of which is the incredible expense of legal fees even if you're in such an open-and-shut case as someone clearly using your intellectual property without your consent. The one with deeper pockets wins regardless of what the law says.