this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
515 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

58138 readers
4338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 26 points 57 minutes ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago) (3 children)

Patents and video games huh? We can't ignore what John Carmack had to say about this:

The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

--John Carmack

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 21 minutes ago

More like he wouldn't be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

[–] Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world -3 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

Thats essentially what both an AI does and what ChatGBT does. Are you gonna defend that to?? Just dont take credit for shit someone else made, who cares if its Nintendo. I don't want my game sprites altered and then sold as though whoever altered them made them by hand?!

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

My cock is not inspired after reading this bad take.

John Carmack is human intelligence and therefore more valuable than artificially generated drivel.

-edit- I mistook inspecting for inspiring for your name. I'm leaving it.

[–] Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world -3 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago) (1 children)

Dont steal my base model that I patented and made entirely by hand and then claim it as your model.

its that simple. As barbaric as the VRCHAT community can be sometimes, I can wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% a crime to take someone else's hard work, tweak it, and then pretend that you own it. Pay people their fucking respects/royalties or take a different approach. Toby Fox did it, Every other Pocket Monster-like Series in Japan did it, and so on. if your gonna make a product similar to another, especially fucking Nintendo with how notorious they are for copyright striking, TAKE THE STEPS AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. Don't churn out a "Pokemon with guns" and then get shocked with your copyright stricken. Thats fucking stupid to me. And its even stupider people are shocked it'd fuckin happen.

There's deadass so many routes they could've went with, Art-styles they could've went with, fucking game mechanics they could've went with. And they chose something that 90% of people can agree "looks like Pokémon, smells like Pokémon, functions similar Pokémon"

I mean for GOD FUCKING SAKES, At least GO WITH DIFFERENT MONSTER IDEAS. We have an ENTIRE WORLD Filled with Cryptids and mystical beasts of all kind, and Palworld STILL CHOSE TO GO for Yokai/Japanese based creatures? Get the fuck outta here with that. Homeboy coulda did American mythos and got away with that, no ones holding a patent against the design of The Flatwoods monster?? Let alone is there a "pokemon" clone of Australian Mythos, so why the fuck are we still trying to do what's already been done to death and then getting shocked with it falls flat or is criticized.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 3 points 5 minutes ago

You are conflating copyright and patents. Copyright is protection for the expression of an idea, like the art design. This is a patent issue, which is a protection of how something works.

If somehow I patent a vague mechanic like "a method of selecting weapons with the directions of an analogue stick or mouse, presented as an 8 direction on screen circle." Then I could sue Red Dead Redemption and Batman Arkham, despite there being no copyright infringement with whatever game I made with that feature.

[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 28 points 2 hours ago

Pocketpair is a Japanese company too right? That doesn't bode well, Japan has some shit laws for defending these sorts of lawsuits. I really like palworld, and don't want it to go away. Fuck Nintendo.

[–] Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world 0 points 15 minutes ago (1 children)

It shocks me just the amount of people rallying behind Palworld SOLEY just to "stick it to the big corp"

At worse its blind rage and ignorance

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 52 seconds ago

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

IDGAF about Palworld as a game, personally. I've never played it and I don't plan to. But that doesn't make Nintendo's behavior not bullshit, and I still hope the Palworld developers win this battle.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 41 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

Copyright only exists for the wealthy to own even more.

[–] Summzashi@lemmy.one 6 points 38 minutes ago

This isn't about copyright. Is there anybody here that has actually read the article? It's absolutely insane how everyone just opens their mouths without understanding anything.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 15 points 1 hour ago (6 children)

No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It's just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This is a patent lawsuit, not copyright

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

even worse. software patents are just more idiotic copyrights.

[–] Ragincloo@lemmy.one 15 points 3 hours ago (12 children)

Idk about that, maybe indefinite copyrights would be but limited term is entirely fair. Like imagine you spend 5 years and $50M to develop something (random numbers here), then the next day someone just copies it and sells it cheaper since they had no overhead in copying your product. There's no incentive to create if all it does is put you in debt, so we do need copyrights if we want things. However Pokemon came out in 96, that's 28 years. There's been very little innovation in their games since. And seeing as Digimon wasn't sued it's not about the monsters, it's about the balls. But those balls haven't changed in almost three decades so I don't think the really have a case to complain

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago

The problem is that IP laws eventually are lobbied by the big copyright holders into being excessively long. How long did Steamboat Willie really have to be copyrighted for, and has their release into the public domain really affected Disney?

Eventually after you get back the money you invested, it's just free money, and people like free money so much they pay lawyers and lobbyists that free money so that they can keep it coming.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›