this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
271 points (98.9% liked)

Games

38160 readers
1212 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
shitpostpolice@lemmy.world
Dremor@lemmy.world
271
Nintendo seeks default judgement and $17,500 in damages from pirated game streamer who ignored court summons (automaton-media.com)
submitted 1 week ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 73 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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...

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Orangutanion@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 15 points 6 days ago

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

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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)

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 12 points 6 days 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.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days 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 6 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 5 days 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.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days 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.

[–] 0x01@lemmy.ml 76 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dumbass@leminal.space 50 points 1 week ago (1 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.

[–] hobbsc@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 1 week ago

all my homies hate Nintendo.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week 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 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Eggyhead@lemmings.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 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 6 days ago

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

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

By broadcasting spoilers and making playing the game pointless.

[–] Eggyhead@lemmings.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Broadcasting spoilers to an audience tuned in to an unscripted live stream play of an unreleased game on the Internet. I don’t get the impression spoilers were much of a concern in the first place.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There's never a point in playing a game if you can't beat it the same day it is released, by that stupid argument.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When you play a game on release date that wasn't leaked, spoilers and stuff surface on the internet at an average pace. Players who wait a long time to play the game will have this similar experience.

Leaked content spreads like wildfire as the posters know it'll most likely be taken down, and well, streisand effect. All communities for the game will be flooded with untagged spoilers before the game is even out. I bet that streamer was basically speedrunning the games to leak as much as possible, which most players who just enjoy the game won't do.

Either way, the money asked for is a lot, yes, however pirating and broadcasting unreleased games is a very stupid crime.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

You can avoid these kind of spoilers without much difficulty.

I still don't even know what game he was playing when he got caught.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This argument is nonsense. Why don't they go after regular review channels and streamers? What difference does it make that the game is streamed before release vs after?

Nintendo isn't your friend. Every minute you waste defending their honor online can instead be spent finding real friends IRL

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Before release is before everyone gets a chance at playing it themselves. This person also isn't a professional reviewer or journalist so their content isn't beneficial to the consumer either. Before also releases spoilers that will be near impossible to avoid once they're out. And what's the point of playing the hot new game if you already know the story?

I call Nintendo my angel of salvation and the mother I never had, but I'm just being realistic. Streaming (actually) pirated new games actually does cause damage. Most likely not as much as Nintendo is suing for, but damages nonetheless.

If they were suing for streaming Super Mario World romhacks, especially in 2025 where SMW is old enough to be a dad or the United States President, and is NOT being actively sold, then yeah, I'd disagree. Even if one were to pull "but it's on Switch Online" or some silly nonsense.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I call Nintendo my angel of salvation and the mother I never had, but I’m just being realistic.

Upvoting just for this.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nintendo actually saved my life, not joking or exaggerating.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're actually unwell then. Seek professional help because Nintendo is not your friend. This is going to blow up in your face some day, and it is going to end poorly for you.

Mental health issues are complicated and suicide is awful, and idk you or your situation. Whatever happened, it's good that you're still here, but this religious devotion to a corporation is fucking disgusting. When you find out that Nintendo employees laugh at people like you during their lunch breaks, will you still feel like they're your angels? How much labor have you given to them, both in the form of money you earned to buy their products, and online activity to defend their honor?

Don't give yourself to a corporation like this. If you were saved, Nintendo weren't the ones who did it.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

I call them out when they actually do something wrong. And yes, they really did save my life, far more than just saving me from suicide.

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments