Nintendo has reportedly gone after the Super Mario 64 PC port, making copyright claims over it

Mario-64-PC-1024x508.jpg

As many expected, Nintendo is likely going after the recently released fanmade Super Mario 64 PC port. After gaining notoriety and popularity throughout the internet, certain YouTube videos and Reddit posts featuring gameplay recordings of the port have been copyright claimed. It appears that Wildwood Law Group LLC, a group that has previously assisted Nintendo in these matters, is responsible for going after the uploads of the game. Not only that, but TorrentFreak is also reporting that they got ahold of a complaint that Nintendo filed with Google, in regards to a Google Drive download link of the game, with the statement, "The copyrighted work is Nintendo's Super Mario 64 video game, including the audio-visual work, software, and fictional character depictions covered by U.S. Copyright Reg No. PA[REDACED]." Links containing a download to an .XCI Nintendo Switch port of the game also appear to have begun making the rounds as well. Seeing that the group behind the Super Mario 64 PC port uploaded the complete game online all at once, many users have probably already backed it up to a variety of sources.

:arrow: Source
 

osaka35

Instructional Designer
Global Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,423
Trophies
1
Location
Silent Hill
XP
4,538
Country
United States
This is not true. At all. You have to defend it, but you do not have to defend it "aggresively." Sega is not going to lose the rights to sonic for letting people make fan-games. It's as simple as saying "you can do that" and you're good. The problem with legal abandonment is "never" defending the game. Defend it once, any aspect of it, and you can let as many fan games exist as you want and be legally fine.
Bare minimum, sure, absolutely. But you want to avoid legal headaches and have zero room for issues, you go aggressive. Could they go the sega route and highly likely be okay? Absolutely. But it's not a guarantee. Mario is arguably the most recognizable mascot/character in the world. The thing is they want zero risks when it comes to the cash cow and don't want even one ruling where they might lose ground. They don't want to become styrofoam or bandaids.

So yes, you're right, they're probably perfectly fine. And technically nothing should happen to them. But to not do so does introduce risk. Sometimes these things are decided by laws, but sometimes by judges.This is why they pushed so hard the "it's not a nintendo, it's a video entertainment system" back in the day. Not just to be pedantic, but to protect their name and their brand.

on a similar note, how weird would it be for some judge to rule derivative coding is perfectly fine for wide distributing as long as it doesn't make a profit? I wouldn't hate it, but they would.

I don't agree with it, i think it's dumb. But it's not like they're doing it just to be dicks. They're legal reasons motivating this action, not just monetary. I would much prefer a sega situation, where they reached out and legally defined and created a safe space for exploration of the character and IP. But that does introduce risk. So. Yeah. Hate it.
 
Last edited by osaka35,
  • Like
Reactions: Memoir

samcambolt270

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,077
Trophies
0
XP
1,940
Country
United States
I don't agree with it, i think it's dumb. But it's not like they're doing it just to be dicks.
I would have agreed up until the point that they intentionally waited until the day before a fan game released to dmca it, on christmas eve no less. They are absolutely doing it to be dicks in many cases. What better way to disuade people than to give them the lingering doubt that, no matter how far along development is, no matter how under the radar it is, ninty is watching.
As for this particular one though, not really. They straight up are releasing mario 64 for free on the internet, so it's not at all a dick move.
 
Last edited by samcambolt270,

osaka35

Instructional Designer
Global Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,423
Trophies
1
Location
Silent Hill
XP
4,538
Country
United States
No. That's trademark. You could theoretically allow people to pirate something for 30 years, and still be well within your rights to make a claim on it whenever you wanted
Yeah, sorry, i just lump them all together as "copyright" when talking. It's kind of lazy of me, i know, sorry. Point is, nintendo does these things for legal reasons, not just to be dicks.
 

Pipistrele

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
767
Trophies
0
Age
28
XP
1,616
Country
Russia
Valve is probably as big as nintendo if not more, yet a lot of their history is related to fans modding their works.
Valve has the luxury of being privately owned company, so there's no one to answer to for them. That's also why they can do such wacky moves as sitting on their biggest franchise for 13 years and releasing next entry as VR exclusive - something that would never fly with shareholders.
 
Last edited by Pipistrele,

Rfire

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
131
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
452
Country
United States
What they're going after are compiled binaries of it since those contain game assets.

The source code hasn't been gone after so far.

I don't think Nintendo wants to risk setting a legal precedent by trying to take down the source code or gag the developers. Sony going after Bleem! caused a legal precedent to be set effectively protecting console emulators from subsequent legal action. Nintendo doesn't want to risk that happening, If they went after the developers of the port who themselves are just releasing source code and not binaries or game assets special interest groups like the EFF or FSF might come to their defense and represent them Pro-bono which would give Nintendo a major fight in court over it.
 
Last edited by Rfire,
  • Like
Reactions: osaka35

Mythical

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
2,149
Trophies
1
Age
23
XP
2,942
Country
United States
Yeah, sorry, i just lump them all together as "copyright" when talking. It's kind of lazy of me, i know, sorry. Point is, nintendo does these things for legal reasons, not just to be dicks.
statute of limitations on piracy in the usa is 3 years after the company is notified
 

eriol33

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
1,137
Trophies
0
Location
Jakarta
XP
2,385
Country
Indonesia
one can hope nintendo will rerelease nintendo 64 with super mario 3d world graphic.

btw is the pc port truly complete? it contains all the original super mario 64 levels?
 

Silent_Gunner

Crazy Cool Cyclops
Banned
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
2,696
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
4,612
Country
United States
The difference is that Nintendo is capable of reliably making quality games without the aid of fans.

Really? Then where's a new Star Fox? F-Zero? Is Metroid Prime 4 canceled? How about a game that's a new IP developed by Nintendo itself? Pikmin 4?

But sure, more Wii U ports to get normies up to speed on games they missed out on in the early 2010's!
 
Last edited by Silent_Gunner,

Mythical

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
2,149
Trophies
1
Age
23
XP
2,942
Country
United States
one can hope nintendo will rerelease nintendo 64 with super mario 3d world graphic.

btw is the pc port truly complete? it contains all the original super mario 64 levels?
seems so, but I couldn't see the boo ghosts in the courtyard, but mayvbe I missed a prerequisite
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,405
Trophies
1
XP
4,042
Country
United Kingdom
It's common knowledge. The N64 copyright ran out a few years ago. So now hardware clones can be made legally.

Copyright lasts for at least 70 years. Patents last 20 years.

Do you understand the difference?

this copyright law need to be repealed. it is censorship!!!

You are censoring me by not giving me your money, car, house, etc.

statute of limitations on piracy in the usa is 3 years after the company is notified

It's complicated

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...or-online-copyright-infringement-apl-v-us.htm

But Nintendo are well within their rights to remove this from the internet. It's like saying "I stole this car and now the owner is being a dick by trying to take my car away from me".

I don't think Nintendo wants to risk setting a legal precedent by trying to take down the source code or gag the developers. Sony going after Bleem! caused a legal precedent to be set effectively protecting console emulators from subsequent legal action.

It didn't really set a precedent, bleem was pre dmca & nothing it did was illegal as there were fair use arguments. It pretty much re-ran sega vs accolade. Modern console emulators would be at risk of violating the DMCA because they would have to work round the DRM.

If the game source code doesn't contain anything from Nintendo then they can't do anything about it. If any of it is based on the reverse engineering of the game that was done a while back, it will be a very expensive job to educate lawyers, courts etc & then prove it.

Nintendo will try to get the best value for money in terms of what they go after and how as protecting your property (which you are entitled to do) can be very expensive.
 
Last edited by smf,
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/dark-souls-ii-x-stone-cold-steve-austin-crossover-is-ve-1...