Nintendo benefitted financially from piracy and made no efforts to hide the fact that they obtained games through the exact same methods that pirates use.
I’m not sure why this didn’t satisfy your pedantry before, but maybe you didn’t read it when you replied to it last time.
I was saying that they benefitted from other people pirating their games.
You thought I meant that they benefitted from pirating their own games.
I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. But no, I meant that they benefitted from their games having been pirated in the past by pirates.
I think you misunderstand the root of the argument. You’re referencing Nintendo copying someone’s rip and that seems illogical - DRM circumvention is illegal under DMCA and similar laws, right? Nintendo is the owner of the license and not licensee for those things however so they can’t really circumvent anything and therefore there is no law against that. Nintendo can download Mario roms off the internet legally because they are the publisher and won’t sue themselves obviously.
No, I’ve understood this whole time that you’re saying “Nintendo is legally allowed to do this with their own games”.
What I’m saying is “Nintendo benefitted from their game having been pirated because they downloaded and sold the exact version of the game that someone illegally pirated”.
Nintendo didn’t do anything illegal. Someone did something illegal, and Nintendo saved time and effort (and therefore money too) because of the illegal thing that someone did.
So you’re literally hung up on the fact that Nintendo used someone’s rip. Are there some scene rules to prevent that or what because I’m deeply confused.
Booty and gold, of course
What did they pirate specifically and why nobody is suing them for it? Please go ahead.
What I said in my last comment was
I’m not sure why this didn’t satisfy your pedantry before, but maybe you didn’t read it when you replied to it last time.
Law is a pedantic thing.
Ok, I see now.
I was saying that they benefitted from other people pirating their games.
You thought I meant that they benefitted from pirating their own games.
I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. But no, I meant that they benefitted from their games having been pirated in the past by pirates.
I think you misunderstand the root of the argument. You’re referencing Nintendo copying someone’s rip and that seems illogical - DRM circumvention is illegal under DMCA and similar laws, right? Nintendo is the owner of the license and not licensee for those things however so they can’t really circumvent anything and therefore there is no law against that. Nintendo can download Mario roms off the internet legally because they are the publisher and won’t sue themselves obviously.
No, I’ve understood this whole time that you’re saying “Nintendo is legally allowed to do this with their own games”.
What I’m saying is “Nintendo benefitted from their game having been pirated because they downloaded and sold the exact version of the game that someone illegally pirated”.
Nintendo didn’t do anything illegal. Someone did something illegal, and Nintendo saved time and effort (and therefore money too) because of the illegal thing that someone did.
So you’re literally hung up on the fact that Nintendo used someone’s rip. Are there some scene rules to prevent that or what because I’m deeply confused.