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

[Jimmy Thick]

There is no good excuse to pirate anything. All the weak excuses on "why I emulate and pirate roms" in this thread are absolutely horrendous and hopefully by incriminating yourself you will indeed be caught and punished according to law.

If this is such a big deal, don't make videos with Nintendo games, you are just licensing the game, you do not own it its not your property.

Get over it, move on.

[Tech614]

They litterally claim 10 second clips in reviews, reports or pretty much anything. These are explicitly allowed. In any other medium they don't give a shit. Heck on other online platforms they don't act like that. It's all down to youtube giving them this automated tool and Nintendo using it with absolute disregard to the law. It would be great if people like you would stop crawling up nintendo's ass.

So got any proof Nintendo isn't in their legal grounds to do what they do?

Any?

None?

Okay then, have fun speeling rhetoric.

[Cosmic Janitor]

So got any proof Nintendo isn't in their legal grounds to do what they do?

Any?

None?

Okay then, have fun speeling rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
I'm not sure what more do you want? English lessons? Or do you want me to go and pay a lawyer to satiate your need for an appeal to authority? Both are not going to happen to please some random nintendo fanboy on the internet.

Nintendo is not actually sueing people over their copyright (they have no grounds for that). Instead they just use youtubes automated system, which is what I was saying in my first post. This is all down to youtube giving corporations blanket tools to bypass proper legal channels, since these tools pretty much generate "house rules" for youtube's service. All because they are still scared shitless of lawsuits.

I see no reason why an unmonetized video clip that doesn't devalue the property at all and is explicitly used for news reporting needs to be claimed to protect nintendo's IP. I'm also unaware that nintendo has ever sued any magazine or TV show that covered their products or demanded they pay royalties to them to not get trolled.

[Pony Soldier]

I don't even have to watch the video to know that whatever he says is complete nonsense. It's never ok to steal someone's property especially something that they worked so hard on. You may not agree with their prices or business practices but that gives you no right to go and steal it. It's their property not yours. They made it you didn't so they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with THEIR fucking games. Not being a white knight for Nintendo just telling it like it is. Nothing wrong with trying to protect their property that they spent so much time and effort into creating. Not to mention how much money it takes to create these games. I'm probably beating a dead horse by saying this but two wrongs never make a right.

I'd guess that the whole video is just him making up bullshit excuses based on his opinions about Nintendo. Just giving himself and others reasons to pirate Nintendo games. He also looks like a complete tool. Like one of those cringy fedora wearing neckbeards that like My Little Pony that you see in cringe compilations on Youtube.

[Tech614]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
I'm not sure what more do you want? English lessons? Or do you want me to go and pay a lawyer to satiate your need for an appeal to authority? Both are not going to happen to please some random nintendo fanboy on the internet.

Nintendo is not actually sueing people over their copyright (they have no grounds for that). Instead they just use youtubes automated system, which is what I was saying in my first post. This is all down to youtube giving corporations blanket tools to bypass proper legal channels, since these tools pretty much generate "house rules" for youtube's service. All because they are still scared shitless of lawsuits.

I see no reason why an unmonetized video clip that doesn't devalue the property at all and is explicitly used for news reporting needs to be claimed to protect nintendo's IP. I'm also unaware that nintendo has ever sued any magazine or TV show that covered their products or demanded they pay royalties to them to not get trolled.

Links fair use. Doesn't understand what fair use is.

That is typical of these threads.

No shit Nintendo isn't sueing anyone, they aren't sueing you for downloading roms of their games either but that doesn't make it covered by some law you don't understand. It's because it's not worth the time or money.

[Deleted]

It's never morally correct to steal anything. Sometimes you are forced to by certain situations but it's never right.

[Jtbrig7390]

You wouldn't copy a car would you ?

[Deleted]

It's intelectual theft.

Traveling by train without buying a ticket is the same as stealing. You're not removing the original, you're just not paying for it.

[Jtbrig7390]

Just you wait until I get a 3D printer big enough!

If I could copy a car that would give me parts to fix the original later

[Orange Joe]

Just you wait until I get a 3D printer big enough!



That's Fare evasion, fare evasion is fare evision, not theft.
For YOU it might feel the same, but it's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fare_evasion

[Rhaide]

Jim is an intelligent, talented internet personality, but he's fairly morally bankrupt. He regularly makes claims that have no basis other than, 'they are dicks, so you can do whatever you want to them'.

Never liked the guy, despite his quality content.

- - - Updated - - -

Just you wait until I get a 3D printer big enough!



That's Fare evasion, fare evasion is fare evision, not theft.
For YOU it might feel the same, but it's not.

You're hiding behind semantic arguments, fare evasion is synonymous with theft of a service.

They are the exact same thing. Whether the valued item is an object or a service is irrelevant, theft can occur regardless. "Fare Evasion" is just a specific term for that type of theft.

[Rhaide]

Whatever makes you feel righteousness, but I’m not hiding behind anything, simply stating the slight differences between one and the other, if such differences exist, then they aren’t “exactly” the same thing, it may feel like that to you, but not everyone holds the same morals and beliefs.

Morals and beliefs don't play into facts. Sorry.

Also I don't know what this discussion is really about and I don't care to. I just saw the glaring falsity that was claiming a difference between the two terms so I corrected it.

[Orange Joe]

Do you have a point or…? I mean, I can also swing Wikipedia links around…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft



Fare evasion is fare evasion, piracy is piracy, theft is theft, they may all be morally wrong and considered crimes in most places in the world, but they are still different things. For YOU one may be just as bad as the next, but they are still slightly different things.

Going in a brothel, banging a whore and bailing without paying it’s not the same as going there, knocking the bitch out and bringing her home over your shoulder, one is… ahh… tax evasion? The other is kidnapping.

Just because the word hasn't been updated for digital goods doesn't really change what you are doing. Besides you are depriving the owner of something. The money they should be getting from the purchase.

[Sheevah]

Just because the word hasn't been updated for digital goods doesn't really change what you are doing. Besides you are depriving the owner of something. The money they should be getting from the purchase.

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but one of the biggest things with the world of piracy is how often the creator wouldn't have been getting money from a purchase. Ultimately, that's been the crux of hundreds of arguments surrounding the act.

You can't deprive a business of money they would have never gotten in the first place. You could have someone that would simply pass on a piece of digital content, because they didn't feel it was worth any monetary value to them. You could have someone that would only buy a cheap secondhand copy or rent a copy (assuming they could find it), meaning that only a third-party is deprived of money. Or, you could have those that would only borrow a copy from a friend for their personal enjoyment on a limited time frame, which deprives no one of money.

Not to condone piracy by any means, but it is much more of a grey area than traditional means of "theft" in the landscape of morality (legal matters are a bit different).

Edit: Also - Shoutout to Stardew Valley for being my favorite story of pirates enjoying a product so much they bought legal copies of it after trying it out.

[Rennadrel]

You must be one of those super smart fellas that think people hosting private wow servers are untouchable because the server isnt located in the US.



Nintendo doesnt need to acknowledge fair use, because thats an US only thing.
Oh, and it doesnt apply to lets plays to begin with. Fair use is an incredibly vague and ambiguous thing people like to wave around like its a free pass or something.


Long story short? Its their property, and they can do as they please with it. There is nothing else to discuss. You do not own the games you bought. They remain property of the developer.

Nintendo of America actually does have to acknowledge fair use laws, because they are a US based entity. Nintendo Japan does not, but considering Nintendo has multiple business entities around the world, they are not all subject to the same laws in every country. By that token, Youtube streamers like Jimquisition are also NOT subject to US law (as much as people seem to think they are), because they are not protected by US fair use laws. That's like me claiming fair use laws impact me as a Canadian, even though they only apply to US citizens. Now, if these fair use laws were international laws, Nintendo would be up shit creek because as international laws, they would protect everyone. YouTube is a US entity, therefor YouTube itself my abide by fair use laws, as should any US based business, including Nintendo of America. Nintendo of Japan has every right to claim copyright infringement, but it doesn't mean they are entitled to anything because they are not an American company.

That is my belief anyway. YouTube needs to man the fuck up and get this shit sorted out, but either way, I don't think any non American, whether they be company or streamer, should be allowed to claim fair use or violations of fair use on YouTube.