They also noted that unauthorized streams of illegally obtained (and) unreleased games compromise Nintendo’s prerelease marketing, which is an offense Keighin allegedly committed over 50 times, infringing copyright of 10 different Nintendo titles in the process.ľlľ

Come on... We are not talking about streamimg an old game (modified or not) on an emulator.

The guy played a game before it was even released and streamed it... And not only once, but with 10 different games. What an idiot... Was probably warned and ignored it, just like the court hearing...

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If he didn't sign an NDA, then this sounds like a bullshit suit.

[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It could be counted as IP infringement, corporate espionage, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark abuse, and I'm sure various other things an actual lawyer would know.

I hate large companies and corporations, I think Nintendo is extremely horrible with a lot of their practices, especially regarding abandonware, archiving, and emulation, but when someone commits various crimes, especially unapologetically and without a just cause, they're still a criminal.

This is a case of a selfish prick of a man being a criminal against a selfish prick of a company.

Edit: oh and of course, piracy. (Sail the seas fellas, just not in plain view)

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For all its shit with killing fan projects, tournaments, and frivolous lawsuits, this is actually a legitimate case.

[–] Orangutanion@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And yet, because of all that other shit, I still don't support Nintendo.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago

Of course not. An asshole who's right is still an asshole.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So? Maybe there's a case against him for regular piracy, but streaming a game pre-release doesn't seem like anything remotely close to copyright infringement. If anything, it's journalism and protected speech.

If a leak causes damage to Nintendo's marketing plans, then Nintendo shouldn't have let it leak in the first place. That's negligence on their part.

Of course idk the full story here. Not showing up to court and handing Nintendo a default judgement is stupid.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 8 hours ago

If a leak causes damage to Nintendo's marketing plans, then Nintendo shouldn't have let it leak in the first place. That's negligence on their part.

That's not how the law works.

But your honour, he wasn't even wearing body armour, it was so easy to shoot him. His murder is entirely his fault it shouldn't have been that easy for me to do it.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If something that would normally be copyrightable is leaked, then the only people who have legal rights to that work are still the original owners. Anyone taking/sharing it is breaching copyright.

Different case for something someone recorded/created themselves, ex recording police abuse on their phone.

I know some people have a misguided view of “But you didn’t register copyright, it’s not copyrighted”. That’s the opposite of how it works. Rights are granted at time of creation; copyright is a “granted” right as part of sale/viewing managing how something can be shared.

Otherwise, a photographer that takes a picture of a rare Snipe can have that photo “legally” stolen before they make it to a lawyer.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If something that would normally be copyrightable is leaked, then the only people who have legal rights to that work are still the original owners. Anyone taking/sharing it is breaching copyright.

It's like you're trying really hard to contort the discussion to make it seem like Nintendo has solid a case here. All the protections you're talking about apply to works regardless of when or how they're released. From the point of view of copyright law, a "leaked" recording of a game is no different from a regular recording of a game. Afaik, the guy in the OP isn't being accused of sharing leaked game files.

If you're trying to say that a recording of a video game is not considered fair use under copyright law, then I give you the existence of Youtube and Twitch as counter evidence.

I know some people have a misguided view...

Maybe, but I don't see how that's relevant here, unless you're implying I have that misconception. If that's the case, please point out which part of my comment lead you to this conclusion.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If you’re trying to say that a recording of a video game is not considered fair use under copyright law, then I give you the existence of Youtube and Twitch as counter evidence.

So, funny you should say that...

This happened to Persona 5. Atlus felt that they had a legal basis to make copyright claims on the game - in their case, circumstantially around spoilers (I guess because they wanted people to pay $50 to experience the late-game story)

And they walked back, not because lawyers were dismantling their case, but because of public outcry. That basis of public preference is what has encouraged game studios to be friendly with Twitch / YouTube, not because judges would rubber-stamp any fair use "transformative work" argument. That is also why many games have given explicit notices to say "Content notice: Please feel free to share videos of this game wherever you'd like!" etc - as it is a non-default judgment.

So, as strange as it is to say, most uploaded videos of a game is in some murky legal territory. Obviously, most studios don't care and even prefer them to be shared for visibility - or took the time to include those notices to make it 100% legal. But when the recording came from an internal build, the game itself is "stolen", in that the person playing it breached either terms of viewing or terms of employment, and then the person re-uploading it is breaching copyright as they had no permission.

If you want to work it through the other way, permission to upload a work is non-default. You need to provide a basis it's legal, not a basis it's illegal. In many cases, it's "I made this". For 99.9% of video game content, it's "the developer is okay with it".

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

We're both armchair lawyering, so I don't feel like continuing this discussion. I'll just quote a part of your comment that I think is silly, both in the claim that is being made, and the confidence with which it is being made:

So, as strange as it is to say, most uploaded videos of a game is in some murky legal territory.

[–] equivocal@lemm.ee 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Sure, a subjective 4-part test to determine whether the content is fair use or not. Totally not murky.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

sane companies "leak" their upcoming games to influencerson purpose as part of their marketing strategy.

nintendo, once again, chooses to treat their most dedicated fans like shit.

[–] dumbass@leminal.space 50 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Is this the dumbass thay was streaming the unreleased games that got leaked?

Not defending Nintendo one bit here, but like, you made your own bed with that one dickhead.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] 0x01@lemmy.ml 76 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Nintendo continues to demonstrate why my personal boycott continues. What a shitty company.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 days ago

I guess “Fuck around and find out” doesn’t apply here.

Don’t forget to mention bootlicking in your replies, lemmys.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] hobbsc 40 points 2 days ago

all my homies hate Nintendo.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nintendo doesn't care if you emulate old games on stream.

They do if it's a live event which I don't really get. Modded smash bros is just not okay at live events but hacked Mario World was at GDQ.

All that aside these games were not only new, but unreleased. He literally could have contributed to lost sales from potential buyers watching the games before they were released.

If they went after some SMW hacker emulating a three decade old game, sure. But they didn't.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

I don't normally victim-blame, but streaming an unreleased game is really asking for it.

It's one thing to pirate a game for yourself. That's just called being poor or being someone who doesn't believe in copyright. The only party who can argue they're being harmed is the developer, who may or may not have received a sale otherwise.

It's another thing to pirate an unreleased game and stream it for others. If you do that and receive ad revenue or donations, you're profiting off of someone else's work. Not only that, but you're also harming the console modding community by incentivizing the publisher to go after homebrew developers and emulator developers. It wasn't a coincidence that shortly after some asshat streamed an unreleased Zelda game being played on Yuzu, Nintendo decided to finally come down on the emulator with an iron fist.

In conclusion, between pirating a game to enjoy yourself and pirating a game to play on a for-profit streaming platform, one of those two things is morally gray and the other is someone being a selfish fuck.

[–] SatanClaus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 days ago

I got banned from Xbox live until year 9999 cause one of the Halo games leaked and I had a modded Xbox. I didn't play online and I didn't stream anything. But my account it accrued achievements. And those fuckers are dated. Lol. Connected the ol Xbox 360 back to the internet to watch Netflix a few months later not thinking about it. And RIP lol

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Eggyhead@lemmings.world 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

He literally could have contributed to lost sales from potential buyers watching the games before they were released.

By allowing consumers to be better informed of what they might have otherwise purchased?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago

Well yeah, that will be their argument and legally it's a good argument.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

all these n-letter company dramas streisand-effect'ed me into being interested in legal switch emulation - I never knew you can even play switch online perfectly legal on PC if there's enough gamers backing up a justified defence against lawsuit-bully attempts by those suits

but yeah this guy here not the brighest light, is he

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Dipshit was streaming games that hadn't even been released yet.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

However, as Keighin did not show up to court,

bro quite literally played the "sorry mario, the princess in another castle" card at them.

load more comments