[cthomson]

I think this is a sticky issue that continues to this day. The scope of Nintendo’s IP should include the delicate game balance of jump distance etc that makes the game what it is. On the other hand the creation of these other products is sort of ‘complementary’ to Nintendo’s products in the same way phone cases complement iPhones.

[bawolff]

Under what basis? If we take the theory that nintendo's IP includes such things, that's an argument that people shouldnt be able to use those elements in a competing game. However making a cheat cartridge is not like that. Copyright is after all about restricting the right to make copies. Its not a catchall monopoly that allows the owner to dictate how to use the product that has been sold to them. Companies sometimes try with EULAs, which is different from intellectual property, but im unclear how enforcible they are, and they seem even less enforcible against the third party selling the cheat device who wouldn't even be a party to the eula.

Maybe you could argue their moral right to the artistic integrity of the work was violated, but that seems like it would be a rather uphill battle. In a modern context if DRM was involved, maybe the anticircumvention would come into play.

IANAL

[kmeisthax]

No need for moral rights. In a modern context anticheat is very much legally DRM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar....

The thing is, 30 years ago a Game Genie was just a way to get some fun out of old cartridges, or blast through an unfair game. Nowadays most games have some kind of an online component, if they're not entirely multiplayer. Hell, most players of online multiplayer games would love to see the cheaters plaguing their games go to jail. Effectively, not only have the conditions of the market changed so much as to render the Galoob precedent unusable, it also makes it kind of anti-consumer, at least in the context of online multiplayer.

Microtransactions also ruin the Galoob precedent - obviously if people are selling you what are effectively cheats, then your cheat device is usurping the market. I bet you if Nintendo had found a way to charge you a quarter every time Mario lost a life, the court would have ruled the other way.

(Blizzard is also responsible for using the DMCA to ban server emulators, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnetd#Blizzard_takedown_demand... . They argued that a server emulator that doesn't check CD Keys is a circumvention tool, and won. Hell, I'm pretty sure this is THE reason why the DMCA exception for old game servers explicitly only covers situations in which the developer released an authorized server program, such as Valve games or Java Minecraft.)

[maerF0x0]

So if my record player plays a record at the wrong RPM it's breaking the artist's IP ?

If I modify my honda civic with a body kit I'm breaking IP?

If I put a sticker over the apple logo on my MBP I'm infringing on their design?

to me the modification of bits in MY Nintendo from MY Cartridge should be none of their business.

[sneak]

I mean, in a strict interpretation of copyright law, it's a violation of copyright to sing a copyrighted song to a friend.

The things you describe are legitimately derivative works in the scope of copyright's worldview.

The issue is that viewing every single idea or concept as "property" with an owner and a price tag attached is a fundamentally broken model.

[somethingwitty1]

Your first statement is not true, at least in the US. Copyright gives the holder the rights over the ability "to perform the copyrighted work publicly" (directly from US law). The wording from the law on public performances: "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered". Even in the strictest interpretation of the law, no reasonable judge/lawyer would find that singing to a single friend would meet this criteria. So someone can absolutely sing a copyrighted song to a friend without being in violation of copyright law. You can even do so with a group of friends (as long as it is what is deemed a normal circle of family/friends).

[sneak]

Yes, I should have clarified the "in public" part.

My original point about the idea that someone can own a song or a number as if it were property is fundamentally insane.

The fact that it being a violation or not depending upon whether the song is sung in public or in private illustrates that point nicely.

[Spivak]

Huh? If I mod my own single player game to change things or use hacks to cheat there’s no way whatsoever I’m violating copyright any more than if I decided to intentionally scratch my records. Buying pre-made mods and patches that don’t bundle copyrighted assets should spiritually be no different. Outside of exceptional cases the rule is that if I can do it myself I can pay someone to do it for me.

With multiplayer games cheating is definitely a TOS violation but again not copyright infringement.

[Sebguer]

Game "mechanics" aren't copyrightable. https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/273935/Texas_court_affir...

[whateveracct]

I don't think Mario's running and jumping frame data is owned by them. I can make a game that meticulously feels like Mario 3 with no legal risk afaiu. Since that's more akin to game rules.