I've run gaming events in the past, including ones hosting significant smash events. The entitlement in this tweetlonger is staggering. Esports are massive loss-leaders for other large publishing...
Exemplary
I've run gaming events in the past, including ones hosting significant smash events.
The entitlement in this tweetlonger is staggering.
Esports are massive loss-leaders for other large publishing companies who view this as advertising. Nintendo doesn't need nor want that advertising. That's up to them. There should be no expectation that any company should necessarily throw money at competitive gaming for any reason.
Esports organizations aren't in this for love, kudos and happiness. They're commercial organizations with investors who want to earn money. Many earn lots of money. Nintendo wants a share if they facilitate that activity. That's only common sense.
There's a negative stigma associated with esports. When getting sponsors for events, we'd regularly meet companies that'd love to support family gaming-related things, but wouldn't ever want to be near esports. One company paid good sponsorship money to have their logos on the equipment/hardware of their brand that was used at one event I ran covered up as they did not want to be associated with esports, energy drinks, people who throw away their lives gaming etc.
Nintendo targets the family gaming audience. Not grown gamers who want 18-rated games. There have been a disproportionate amount of scandals concerning bigotry, sexually related crimes, fraud, cheating, sexism and other things to put huge and serious brands off from touching esports with a massively long pole.
It's easy for those embedded in esports or twitch culture to forget how absolutely abhorrent what goes on may seem to others. Especially if they come from a different part of the world where respect and public face is so much more important. Like Nintendo's home market.
Most of the complaints here aren't about supporting the scene with money, but simply Nintendo allowing other organizations to do it at no cost to them. The rest of the complaints are about...
Most of the complaints here aren't about supporting the scene with money, but simply Nintendo allowing other organizations to do it at no cost to them. The rest of the complaints are about Nintendo's game of acting like they're going to give support, forcing the scene to limit itself with changes that benefit Nintendo.
According to my source, the entities mentioned above, every single one of them, have attempted to work with Nintendo while fronting all of the costs. In other words, they attempt to work with Nintendo without asking for a dime from them. All they seek is permission. This is not the normal practice. Typically, developers front some money themselves for a chance to run a circuit with companies like Redbull and Twitch. In this instance, we have Twitch and Redbull willing to put down a lot of money to run a circuit, and still, hardly anything comes from Nintendo.
Another thing to note is that the people who have put years and countless hours into making this work with Nintendo also worked on making circuits happen for Tekken, Dragon Ball FighterZ, and Street Fighter. Circuits for those games came to fruition within months. The negotiations were much more simple. Yet with Nintendo and Smash, the process has taken over 5 years and counting.
At a certain point, it becomes clear that Nintendo doesn’t want Smash esports to happen, but they allow people to think it will.
I don't know how a scene wanting permission to run their own goddamn sport on their own dime while also bending over backwards to the demands of a company which gives them nothing in return is in any way "entitled".
No cost in money, but there is a hidden cost; Nintendo giving up control and risking being associated with the people who participate in and run those community tournaments. And in light of the...
at no cost to them
No cost in money, but there is a hidden cost; Nintendo giving up control and risking being associated with the people who participate in and run those community tournaments. And in light of the somewhat recent allegations of rampant harassment, abuse, and sexual misconduct within said community, can you honestly blame Nintendo for being wary of allowing their game to be associated with, and under the control of, that community?
Nintendo's aim is to be family friendly, and the Smash scene is anything but that; It's thus far been the epitome of gamer bro culture in the extreme, from what I have read and seen of it.
But it's not their sport. That's the issue. It's Nintendo's game, Nintendo's IP, Nintendo's art assets, Nintendo's characters. You are not entitled to run an esport for any game.
I don't know how a scene wanting permission to run their own goddamn sport
But it's not their sport. That's the issue. It's Nintendo's game, Nintendo's IP, Nintendo's art assets, Nintendo's characters. You are not entitled to run an esport for any game.
Sure, if you genuinely believe a company should have that much control over how people make use of their software. It's the scene's sport because they make it a sport and run everything sport-like...
Sure, if you genuinely believe a company should have that much control over how people make use of their software.
It's the scene's sport because they make it a sport and run everything sport-like about it. I don't believe Nintendo should have any more say in that than Spalding or the inventors of basketball do over who can run the sport and how they do so. Meaning none.
This is just another evil of software and art being property. It's stealing from humanity as a whole.
The difference is that basketball or football or baseball are old concepts that were not copyrighted nor trademarked. You can make a smash-style platform fighter. Rivals of Aether is a perfectly...
It's the scene's sport because they make it a sport and run everything sport-like about it. I don't believe Nintendo should have any more say in that than Spalding or the inventors of basketball do over who can run the sport and how they do so. Meaning none.
The difference is that basketball or football or baseball are old concepts that were not copyrighted nor trademarked. You can make a smash-style platform fighter. Rivals of Aether is a perfectly fine game and will have no legal trouble from Nintendo.
You are free to compete on your disc of smash, of course. But where the issue comes is the broadcast of that.
And yes, I honestly do think IP owners should have a degree of control over how their media is used. It can be a real force. Think about My Little Pony; you can't mention it without sexual undertones on the internet now. That's... probably not what the creators intended.
If Nintendo made these characters, made the models, and art, and wants to make sure they are only broadcasted in the context of casual FFAs, then that's their prerogative.
I don't think copyright and trademarks are morally valid, nor do I think artists and developers should have any control over usage. As far as I'm concerned, those very things have robbed us of...
I don't think copyright and trademarks are morally valid, nor do I think artists and developers should have any control over usage. As far as I'm concerned, those very things have robbed us of more cultural and creative possibilities than anything in history.
Of course, that's a much bigger conversation that I'm going to guess neither of us want to get into beyond just recognizing the different places we're coming from.
Well, I don't think I do more disagree, I think control over IP is an important aspect of allowing creative freedom by being able to craft an image around your product, so that people can assume...
Well, I don't think I do more disagree, I think control over IP is an important aspect of allowing creative freedom by being able to craft an image around your product, so that people can assume that things you make have attributes you want for them. At the least this should show that the issue is multifaceted. It's not just big corp bullying people for no reason.
And outside of morality, I don't think it needs to be said who IP law favors.
Literally answered in the previous sentence: Outside of fair use (which is way more limited in scope than most people think it is), you do not have the right to utilize, broadcast, and/or profit...
Literally answered in the previous sentence:
It's Nintendo's game, Nintendo's IP, Nintendo's art assets, Nintendo's characters.
Outside of fair use (which is way more limited in scope than most people think it is), you do not have the right to utilize, broadcast, and/or profit off those without Nintendo's permission. You can disagree with the current state of IP law in the US (and elsewhere) all you want, but that's the current reality of the situation.
It's the standard because morality/ethics is unfortunately not what ultimately matters here. I happen to agree with you that IP law is detrimental (past a certain point anyways), especially given...
It's the standard because morality/ethics is unfortunately not what ultimately matters here. I happen to agree with you that IP law is detrimental (past a certain point anyways), especially given how expanded and extended they have become (largely thanks to Disney's efforts)... but that doesn't change the fact that Nintendo currently has the right to control almost every aspect of their IP, and determine how they want it used. And if they want to shut down broadcasts from streamers and community tournaments utilizing their IP, that's entirely within their rights, no matter how much the community wants it to be otherwise.
I don't think anyone has claimed Nintendo is acting outside of their legal rights. That's not in the post or in these comments. it's just weird and doesn't address the concerns being raised.
I don't think anyone has claimed Nintendo is acting outside of their legal rights. That's not in the post or in these comments.
"Hey this company is doing something bad and I'm angry about it."
"But they're legally allowed to do so, and that's all that matters!"
it's just weird and doesn't address the concerns being raised.
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I am specifically discussing the law in this particular thread is because it all basically spawned from your comment denying that the community is...
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I am specifically discussing the law in this particular thread is because it all basically spawned from your comment denying that the community is acting entitled, i.e. "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment". And due to them lacking the legal rights to Nintendo's IP but still wanting to utilize it despite not having permission, they are, by definition, acting entitled.
I don't think they believe they're deserving of special treatment, rather that the treatment they're getting is bad regardless of the target, and that's what I'm saying as well. Just semantics...
I don't think they believe they're deserving of special treatment, rather that the treatment they're getting is bad regardless of the target, and that's what I'm saying as well. Just semantics though, I get why you started going down that path now.
To add on to non legal concerns, Smash bros isn't the only platform fighter around anymore. Melee inspired games like RoA exist, and are great, and the developers are super happy with people...
To add on to non legal concerns, Smash bros isn't the only platform fighter around anymore. Melee inspired games like RoA exist, and are great, and the developers are super happy with people playing competitively.
So why is there so much clinging to a game where the developers are clearly unhappy with competitive gameplay? Because people love Nintendo IP. No doubt a large amount of the appeal is from hitching off of Nintendo's prior work building characters that people love.
And when you hitch yourself atop someone's work, I think they should get a say.
Baby Duck Syndrome. That is why killing a mod like project M is so devastating. The momentum it had developed was lightning in a bottle. It can't simply be recreated now that it's clear the...
So why is there so much clinging to a game where the developers are clearly unhappy with competitive gameplay?
That is why killing a mod like project M is so devastating. The momentum it had developed was lightning in a bottle. It can't simply be recreated now that it's clear the implied rewards of sacrificing it aren't going to come to fruition.
What are the relevant precedents to back up that the video output of running copyrighted software is a derivative work of the software, absent a license agreement where the user agrees to assign...
What are the relevant precedents to back up that the video output of running copyrighted software is a derivative work of the software, absent a license agreement where the user agrees to assign copyright?
You're clearly allowed, having bought the disk, to play the game and copy those copyrighted characters to your TV. If it's a multi-player game you clearly have the right to play it with others. If you compose a song on Mario Paint, absent any specific license agreement, you would have copyright on the resulting audio, since that's what the software is for.
What's the legal basis for whether the software is marketed for composing content affecting who owns the copyright on the resulting content?
The only possible avenue wherein you can argue that a video stream of a Smash tournament is not copyright infringement is applying the fair use doctrine (note, doctrine; it's not a rule, or law,...
Under copyright law, game developers and publishers legally own the rights to use of the game – including images and video. This means they can limit and control how their video is being broadcast during a live stream on platforms like Twitch and YouTube.
The only possible avenue wherein you can argue that a video stream of a Smash tournament is not copyright infringement is applying the fair use doctrine (note, doctrine; it's not a rule, or law, it's a doctrine you use in your defense), but I highly doubt it would apply in this case. Especially with the "Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" tenant; the entire video product and much of the audio is the copyrighted material Nintendo owns.
There's a reason that MST3k actually licensed every single movie they riffed that wasn't public domain.
Unless you mean just playing the tournament. That's going to be fine. I don't think Nintendo can stop some lads from getting together and playing the game. What's going to get LAW'd is the stream, and possibly the website and promotional material.
Where can I find supporting evidence for this point? On what basis is it determined that when the store sold me the GameCube disc, without a written EULA saying what I could or couldn't do with...
Under copyright law, game developers and publishers legally own the rights to use of the game – including images and video.
Where can I find supporting evidence for this point? On what basis is it determined that when the store sold me the GameCube disc, without a written EULA saying what I could or couldn't do with it, I got a license that lets me copy the copyrighted content on it into the console's memory, but that doesn't let me distribute the videos I compose using the software? Is it just that many years later the company comes by and says "actually we didn't intend for you to be able to do that"? Am I entitled to a refund if I bought the software for the use that the company forgot to tell me it intended to prohibit?
When I buy a copyrighted stencil I also buy a license to use the stencil to reproduce and distribute the shapes it carries. What piece of legislation or court precedent supports the conclusion that it is an established fact in US law that video games do not work like stencils?
By default copyright prohibits everything that involves copying, distributing, publishing, modifying etc. etc. It gives the copyright holder (= often, but not always, the author) exclusive rights....
Exemplary
By default copyright prohibits everything that involves copying, distributing, publishing, modifying etc. etc. It gives the copyright holder (= often, but not always, the author) exclusive rights. For everything else you either need a license or the law needs to include a limitation or exception (or fair use doctrine in USA).
Below I will use the Slovenian Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah [ZASP] (eng. translation Copyright and Related Rights Act (PDF)) as an example, because I am most familiar with that one, and discussing copyright in eSports is not very high on my priority list, so I don’t intend to bother searching through the US legislation for relevant section numbers and especially case law (practical things about civil law countries, not relying on case law that much helps with searching). Things should be pretty similar in USA though. To simplify, I will leave out moral rights as well (most don’t apply to software anyway).
Regarding playing the game, the normal/intended use of a copyrighted work is allowed by law (ZASP, §46), which is why a company needs to have you agree in an End User License Agreement that you are getting less rights as allowed by law, if they want to restrict your right to use to e.g. a number of computers, time, limit to school work etc.
Regarding the necessary temporary copying of the game in order to make it run, the law allows free use for such temporary reproduction (ZASP §49.a), to the extent it is strictly necessary for its normal and legal use.
Regarding public transmission (§27), Right of public communication by means of phonograms or videograms (§28) and (re)broadcasting (§§30-32.a), ZASP explicitly states that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Finally, a game is not a stencil. Just as a film is not a stencil. You can quote it (§51), you can critique and parody it (§53) just as any other work though. A stencil’s intended use is to be used for recreating shapes, a film’s intended use is to be watched, and a game’s intended use is to be played.
A game might be used as a tool to create new works of art (think machinima) and in that case you do own copyright in the final work, but just that (thin) layer; the art, assets and game engine are still well within the realm of its original copyright holder. But simply playing a game falls well within its “intended use”, and it would be very hard for it to pass the originality muster needed to qualify for a new copyrighted work (even from a very skilled player). That being said, you probably can use a game to have an artistic performance, especially if parts of the game are an integral part of it e.g. needed for critique or parody.
P.S. Is copyright dated and needs fixing? Hell yeah! But that’s what the law currently says. And don’t even get me started on how copyright (and trade mark) law applies to GitHub forks *shivers*
Interesting details, but it is apparent that Nintendo just does not know how to handle eSports – they don’t get it in Smash, they sure as hell dropped the ball on ARMS. So far the franchise that...
Interesting details, but it is apparent that Nintendo just does not know how to handle eSports – they don’t get it in Smash, they sure as hell dropped the ball on ARMS. So far the franchise that got the best out of it was Splatoon, and even there things are not entirely rosy I think.
Also, the fact that Nintendo is super protective of their IP is nothing new.
I don't think Nintendo wants to have eSports on its platform. Nintendo seems to want to be family friendly, kid oriented and accessible to people of all skill levels. eSports is perceived to be...
I don't think Nintendo wants to have eSports on its platform. Nintendo seems to want to be family friendly, kid oriented and accessible to people of all skill levels. eSports is perceived to be contrary to those ideals, and alienating to their base. They want to distance themselves from the Gamer™ culture as much as possible.
I think this is a misstep by them by I am also completely unsurprised.
Honestly, I don't know if it is a misstep practically. Perception is a big deal. Whenever you ask people, "hey, why don't you try a fighting game"? the most common response is "it's too hard", i.e...
Honestly, I don't know if it is a misstep practically. Perception is a big deal. Whenever you ask people, "hey, why don't you try a fighting game"? the most common response is "it's too hard", i.e the minimum amount of effort needed to have fun is too much. That's a real thing. Nintendo wants Smash to be a happy fun party game for people to goof around with their friends in FFA, because that way no one is scared that if they buy the game they'll stop playing after an hour because they get bullied off of online.
It's common in the FGC to say "don't even bother playing online unless you have an ethernet connection", and they're not wrong per say, but c'mon, you know Nintendo doesn't want that to be the messaging with their game.
I've run gaming events in the past, including ones hosting significant smash events.
The entitlement in this tweetlonger is staggering.
Esports are massive loss-leaders for other large publishing companies who view this as advertising. Nintendo doesn't need nor want that advertising. That's up to them. There should be no expectation that any company should necessarily throw money at competitive gaming for any reason.
Esports organizations aren't in this for love, kudos and happiness. They're commercial organizations with investors who want to earn money. Many earn lots of money. Nintendo wants a share if they facilitate that activity. That's only common sense.
There's a negative stigma associated with esports. When getting sponsors for events, we'd regularly meet companies that'd love to support family gaming-related things, but wouldn't ever want to be near esports. One company paid good sponsorship money to have their logos on the equipment/hardware of their brand that was used at one event I ran covered up as they did not want to be associated with esports, energy drinks, people who throw away their lives gaming etc.
Nintendo targets the family gaming audience. Not grown gamers who want 18-rated games. There have been a disproportionate amount of scandals concerning bigotry, sexually related crimes, fraud, cheating, sexism and other things to put huge and serious brands off from touching esports with a massively long pole.
It's easy for those embedded in esports or twitch culture to forget how absolutely abhorrent what goes on may seem to others. Especially if they come from a different part of the world where respect and public face is so much more important. Like Nintendo's home market.
Edit: missing words: "covered up"
Most of the complaints here aren't about supporting the scene with money, but simply Nintendo allowing other organizations to do it at no cost to them. The rest of the complaints are about Nintendo's game of acting like they're going to give support, forcing the scene to limit itself with changes that benefit Nintendo.
I don't know how a scene wanting permission to run their own goddamn sport on their own dime while also bending over backwards to the demands of a company which gives them nothing in return is in any way "entitled".
No cost in money, but there is a hidden cost; Nintendo giving up control and risking being associated with the people who participate in and run those community tournaments. And in light of the somewhat recent allegations of rampant harassment, abuse, and sexual misconduct within said community, can you honestly blame Nintendo for being wary of allowing their game to be associated with, and under the control of, that community?
Nintendo's aim is to be family friendly, and the Smash scene is anything but that; It's thus far been the epitome of gamer bro culture in the extreme, from what I have read and seen of it.
But it's not their sport. That's the issue. It's Nintendo's game, Nintendo's IP, Nintendo's art assets, Nintendo's characters. You are not entitled to run an esport for any game.
Sure, if you genuinely believe a company should have that much control over how people make use of their software.
It's the scene's sport because they make it a sport and run everything sport-like about it. I don't believe Nintendo should have any more say in that than Spalding or the inventors of basketball do over who can run the sport and how they do so. Meaning none.
This is just another evil of software and art being property. It's stealing from humanity as a whole.
The difference is that basketball or football or baseball are old concepts that were not copyrighted nor trademarked. You can make a smash-style platform fighter. Rivals of Aether is a perfectly fine game and will have no legal trouble from Nintendo.
You are free to compete on your disc of smash, of course. But where the issue comes is the broadcast of that.
And yes, I honestly do think IP owners should have a degree of control over how their media is used. It can be a real force. Think about My Little Pony; you can't mention it without sexual undertones on the internet now. That's... probably not what the creators intended.
If Nintendo made these characters, made the models, and art, and wants to make sure they are only broadcasted in the context of casual FFAs, then that's their prerogative.
I don't think copyright and trademarks are morally valid, nor do I think artists and developers should have any control over usage. As far as I'm concerned, those very things have robbed us of more cultural and creative possibilities than anything in history.
Of course, that's a much bigger conversation that I'm going to guess neither of us want to get into beyond just recognizing the different places we're coming from.
Well, I don't think I do more disagree, I think control over IP is an important aspect of allowing creative freedom by being able to craft an image around your product, so that people can assume that things you make have attributes you want for them. At the least this should show that the issue is multifaceted. It's not just big corp bullying people for no reason.
And outside of morality, I don't think it needs to be said who IP law favors.
Why not?
Literally answered in the previous sentence:
Outside of fair use (which is way more limited in scope than most people think it is), you do not have the right to utilize, broadcast, and/or profit off those without Nintendo's permission. You can disagree with the current state of IP law in the US (and elsewhere) all you want, but that's the current reality of the situation.
I'm not sure why legality is the standard here. We're not in a court of law, we're talking about what's right and wrong.
It's the standard because morality/ethics is unfortunately not what ultimately matters here. I happen to agree with you that IP law is detrimental (past a certain point anyways), especially given how expanded and extended they have become (largely thanks to Disney's efforts)... but that doesn't change the fact that Nintendo currently has the right to control almost every aspect of their IP, and determine how they want it used. And if they want to shut down broadcasts from streamers and community tournaments utilizing their IP, that's entirely within their rights, no matter how much the community wants it to be otherwise.
I don't think anyone has claimed Nintendo is acting outside of their legal rights. That's not in the post or in these comments.
it's just weird and doesn't address the concerns being raised.
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I am specifically discussing the law in this particular thread is because it all basically spawned from your comment denying that the community is acting entitled, i.e. "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment". And due to them lacking the legal rights to Nintendo's IP but still wanting to utilize it despite not having permission, they are, by definition, acting entitled.
But if you want more on-topic discussion about the community's complaints, and Nintendo's potential reasoning/perspective on all this, see my other main reply to you above: https://tildes.net/~games/tic/how_nintendo_has_hurt_the_smash_community#comment-5wf1
I don't think they believe they're deserving of special treatment, rather that the treatment they're getting is bad regardless of the target, and that's what I'm saying as well. Just semantics though, I get why you started going down that path now.
To add on to non legal concerns, Smash bros isn't the only platform fighter around anymore. Melee inspired games like RoA exist, and are great, and the developers are super happy with people playing competitively.
So why is there so much clinging to a game where the developers are clearly unhappy with competitive gameplay? Because people love Nintendo IP. No doubt a large amount of the appeal is from hitching off of Nintendo's prior work building characters that people love.
And when you hitch yourself atop someone's work, I think they should get a say.
Baby Duck Syndrome.
That is why killing a mod like project M is so devastating. The momentum it had developed was lightning in a bottle. It can't simply be recreated now that it's clear the implied rewards of sacrificing it aren't going to come to fruition.
What are the relevant precedents to back up that the video output of running copyrighted software is a derivative work of the software, absent a license agreement where the user agrees to assign copyright?
You're clearly allowed, having bought the disk, to play the game and copy those copyrighted characters to your TV. If it's a multi-player game you clearly have the right to play it with others. If you compose a song on Mario Paint, absent any specific license agreement, you would have copyright on the resulting audio, since that's what the software is for.
What's the legal basis for whether the software is marketed for composing content affecting who owns the copyright on the resulting content?
The only possible avenue wherein you can argue that a video stream of a Smash tournament is not copyright infringement is applying the fair use doctrine (note, doctrine; it's not a rule, or law, it's a doctrine you use in your defense), but I highly doubt it would apply in this case. Especially with the "Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" tenant; the entire video product and much of the audio is the copyrighted material Nintendo owns.
There's a reason that MST3k actually licensed every single movie they riffed that wasn't public domain.
Unless you mean just playing the tournament. That's going to be fine. I don't think Nintendo can stop some lads from getting together and playing the game. What's going to get LAW'd is the stream, and possibly the website and promotional material.
Where can I find supporting evidence for this point? On what basis is it determined that when the store sold me the GameCube disc, without a written EULA saying what I could or couldn't do with it, I got a license that lets me copy the copyrighted content on it into the console's memory, but that doesn't let me distribute the videos I compose using the software? Is it just that many years later the company comes by and says "actually we didn't intend for you to be able to do that"? Am I entitled to a refund if I bought the software for the use that the company forgot to tell me it intended to prohibit?
When I buy a copyrighted stencil I also buy a license to use the stencil to reproduce and distribute the shapes it carries. What piece of legislation or court precedent supports the conclusion that it is an established fact in US law that video games do not work like stencils?
By default copyright prohibits everything that involves copying, distributing, publishing, modifying etc. etc. It gives the copyright holder (= often, but not always, the author) exclusive rights. For everything else you either need a license or the law needs to include a limitation or exception (or fair use doctrine in USA).
Below I will use the Slovenian Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah [ZASP] (eng. translation Copyright and Related Rights Act (PDF)) as an example, because I am most familiar with that one, and discussing copyright in eSports is not very high on my priority list, so I don’t intend to bother searching through the US legislation for relevant section numbers and especially case law (practical things about civil law countries, not relying on case law that much helps with searching). Things should be pretty similar in USA though. To simplify, I will leave out moral rights as well (most don’t apply to software anyway).
Regarding playing the game, the normal/intended use of a copyrighted work is allowed by law (ZASP, §46), which is why a company needs to have you agree in an End User License Agreement that you are getting less rights as allowed by law, if they want to restrict your right to use to e.g. a number of computers, time, limit to school work etc.
Regarding the necessary temporary copying of the game in order to make it run, the law allows free use for such temporary reproduction (ZASP §49.a), to the extent it is strictly necessary for its normal and legal use.
Regarding public transmission (§27), Right of public communication by means of phonograms or videograms (§28) and (re)broadcasting (§§30-32.a), ZASP explicitly states that is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
Finally, a game is not a stencil. Just as a film is not a stencil. You can quote it (§51), you can critique and parody it (§53) just as any other work though. A stencil’s intended use is to be used for recreating shapes, a film’s intended use is to be watched, and a game’s intended use is to be played.
A game might be used as a tool to create new works of art (think machinima) and in that case you do own copyright in the final work, but just that (thin) layer; the art, assets and game engine are still well within the realm of its original copyright holder. But simply playing a game falls well within its “intended use”, and it would be very hard for it to pass the originality muster needed to qualify for a new copyrighted work (even from a very skilled player). That being said, you probably can use a game to have an artistic performance, especially if parts of the game are an integral part of it e.g. needed for critique or parody.
P.S. Is copyright dated and needs fixing? Hell yeah! But that’s what the law currently says. And don’t even get me started on how copyright (and trade mark) law applies to GitHub forks *shivers*
Infinitely frustrating. Maybe the worst part here from my perspective is how PM got effectively killed off for nothing.
Interesting details, but it is apparent that Nintendo just does not know how to handle eSports – they don’t get it in Smash, they sure as hell dropped the ball on ARMS. So far the franchise that got the best out of it was Splatoon, and even there things are not entirely rosy I think.
Also, the fact that Nintendo is super protective of their IP is nothing new.
I don't think Nintendo wants to have eSports on its platform. Nintendo seems to want to be family friendly, kid oriented and accessible to people of all skill levels. eSports is perceived to be contrary to those ideals, and alienating to their base. They want to distance themselves from the Gamer™ culture as much as possible.
I think this is a misstep by them by I am also completely unsurprised.
Honestly, I don't know if it is a misstep practically. Perception is a big deal. Whenever you ask people, "hey, why don't you try a fighting game"? the most common response is "it's too hard", i.e the minimum amount of effort needed to have fun is too much. That's a real thing. Nintendo wants Smash to be a happy fun party game for people to goof around with their friends in FFA, because that way no one is scared that if they buy the game they'll stop playing after an hour because they get bullied off of online.
It's common in the FGC to say "don't even bother playing online unless you have an ethernet connection", and they're not wrong per say, but c'mon, you know Nintendo doesn't want that to be the messaging with their game.
I really hope Nintendo gives a rational explanation for these practices (if true). They seem to contradict themselves whenever seems convenient.