Quoting: EWGMeh. All these monsters mimic animals, plants, fungi, and objects IRL. There's bound to be a certain level of overlap.

So long as they don't have any major stars that are too similar to Pikachu, the starters, or other famous pokémon then I don't think The Pokémon Company or Nintendo have water to bathe in or whatever that expression is.

That being said, I imagine the aforementioned companies need to have their diapers changed at the looming success of this upcoming game. 🤭

If only Nintendo would play fair and embrace F/LOSS and hackers....
They can't beat 'em!

This will definitely tip a few sales towards thr Deck over the Switch.

That being said, we need major competitors versus the conglomerates that are sony & μshaft.

You're way too optimistic.
The total value of the sales of this game will probably disappear within the rounding margin of error of Nintendo and the amount of switch consoles sold won't even budge.
Part of the reason they won't notice this is, because they've locked themselves mostly out of the influence of F/LOSS and hackers, with their self controlled store this game won't get in.

That doesn't mean it won't be a success.
It will sell millions of licenses. Get ported to mobile, Xbox and Playstation attract hundreds of players to the SteamDeck.
It's just that Nintendo sells billions of licenses for a higher price and more merchandise and ports their games to "wherever they desire".
Oh and marketing deals with Nintendo are worth more, because they target more vulnerable demographics.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: 14I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

Many know you meant that(it's a common argument made in this kind of discussions).
Penglin argued in reaction that although we do as you described, we pay for the privilege of reading, watching and playing things before getting inspired, which OpenAI didn't do(they just downloaded the content from piracy sites).

I argued that making things that contain unlicensed copyrighted elements is always illegal including for entities and "proofed" that with the legal standing fan fiction.
Someone correctly pointed out to me that in the case of fan fiction it's sometimes not illegal(if you can show you didn't negatively affect the sale of the original).
I argued that OpenAI still wouldn't be able to claim that, because they did negatively affect the sale of the original.

Someone else(too lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity capable and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.
This is an effect of the context dependence of the law, which I find hard to understand, so I'm assuming you also think so.
This my attempt at explaining it.
You know how wNK3c5Z5 is a random generated string and thus useful for security, wNK3c5Z5 isn't secure, because it's a copy of the first one and thus not randomly generated.
The strings are identical and still one is secure and the other isn't. It's because of the context one is randomly generated, while the other isn't.
The law deals with these kind of differences all the time.
If I make an AI that exactly behaves and looks likes exactly like some human with a driving license the AI still can't be allowed to drive alone, because it isn't an adult citizen with a driving license and thus can't be held responsible for its deeds.
If I smash a soft wax stamp in a statue and use the stamp as a mall to make more of that statue I'm also violating copyright although I didn't have to make any of the movements the artist.

Sorry you went through the trouble to make a large post, but appreciate it.

I don't have a strong opinion in favor of AI here. But I like trying to understand why each perspective somehow makes sense to the owner of that perspective. My choice words I think there is an argument is me saying there is a compelling-enough argument to have an argument, but I don't think I'd be the one playing representative because I haven't chosen a side.

Out of the handful of debatable elements you pointed out, in my own words, I think the most compelling argument content creators of any kind have against current AI usage in terms of copyrighted material is that AI chat bots can effectively become a proxy to same information and harm creator profits by eliminating sales of said content as well as ad traffic for "free" content. Acting as a proxy is like hijacking in a way... mm, let's say mimicking or miming. In another way, you could say it is redistribution, which is a clear topic in copyright law as far as I know. Yeah, I think if lawyers can convince judges that AI falls under redistribution of copyrighted material, that is winnable.

First. No, issue.
I like writing long blog posts.
Second.
Good attempt. Something that could help is the blog post itself it contains some legal arguing form OpenAI.
Third.
You're certainly correct. The actual legal defense of OpenAI in their post is aimed at the exact strategy you describe in this post. They claim "fair use", which means they claim they don't harm the sale of the original.

Yes, this basically means denying the allegation.
I'm curios how they will defend against Penglin's argument(downloading without paying from recognized piracy sites is piracy).
The OpenAI blog post seems to really limit their ability to defend against such an accusation and it matters, because it's the one allegation I'm certain can get them their computers sized(those things are expensive and could reveal most of their database to the public in the inevitable court case).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: tuubiThe catching ball mechanic has been copied by plenty of monster catching games before,

This mechanic originated in the 1994 SNES RPG Robotrek [External Link], and Enix (who, as we know, later merged with Square to form Square-Enix) has never taken any action about it that I'm aware of.

Let's be honest, the "keeping a creature in a ball" idea is inspired by gachapon toys, so there's generic prior-art from long before any video game employed the idea. :smile:

Pengling, the extend of your knowledge of the history of game development is scary sometimes, you know that?
I can see you are using a search engine, but that's not such a powerful excuse as you might think.
The fact that you are using it in a casual conversation means that you knew many of the basic facts and just tried to fill in the blanks with it.
I'm happy to converse with such a knowledgable person about their subject, but wow.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: LoudTechieSomeone else(to lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.

Yeah, this should be obvious. The AI isn't a person or a corporate entity. It's a tool, and whoever operates this tool is the one who would have to make sure they're not using copyrighted materials without license. The AI itself has no agency, which underlines the absurdity of the term as applied to these algorithms.

Obvious is relative.
For all my life I've trained in the way of "if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's a duck".
To me this is the most challenging aspect of the legal system I seriously interact with.
The only reason I somewhat understand it is, because I've looked in the effects of copyright in my terrain of study before AI got cool.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

Many know you meant that(it's a common argument made in this kind of discussions).
Penglin argued in reaction that although we do as you described, we pay for the privilege of reading, watching and playing things before getting inspired, which OpenAI didn't do(they just downloaded the content from piracy sites).

I argued that making things that contain unlicensed copyrighted elements is always illegal including for entities and "proofed" that with the legal standing fan fiction.
Someone correctly pointed out to me that in the case of fan fiction it's sometimes not illegal(if you can show you didn't negatively affect the sale of the original).
I argued that OpenAI still wouldn't be able to claim that, because they did negatively affect the sale of the original.

Someone else(too lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity capable and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.
This is an effect of the context dependence of the law, which I find hard to understand, so I'm assuming you also think so.
This my attempt at explaining it.
You know how wNK3c5Z5 is a random generated string and thus useful for security, wNK3c5Z5 isn't secure, because it's a copy of the first one and thus not randomly generated.
The strings are identical and still one is secure and the other isn't. It's because of the context one is randomly generated, while the other isn't.
The law deals with these kind of differences all the time.
If I make an AI that exactly behaves and looks likes exactly like some human with a driving license the AI still can't be allowed to drive alone, because it isn't an adult citizen with a driving license and thus can't be held responsible for its deeds.
If I smash a soft wax stamp in a statue and use the stamp as a mall to make more of that statue I'm also violating copyright although I didn't have to make any of the movements the artist.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: melkemindBeing derivative isn't copyright infringement.

Well, being derivative is actually copyright infringement. That's why unauthorized translations fall under copyright infringement; they're derivative works.

JK Rowling sued over Tanya Grotter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Legal_history [External Link]

In 2003, courts there prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of the first in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, after Rowling and Time Warner's lawyers issued a cease and desist order, arguing that the Grotter books violated copyright law, specifically infringing on Rowling's right to control derivative works.

I think you're veering into straw man territory here, but I'll agree that derivative works infringe copyright. But only if they fit the definition:

Quoting: WikipediaIn copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.

(Emphasis mine.)

Does Palworld fail that check? Some of the creatures look very similar to Pokemon monsters, but as Pengling's post showed, even more blatant examples have gone uncontested in commercial products, which works against any copyright claim on that front. The rest is no more derivative in the copyright sense than most games you can find on Steam.

Tnx.
That's indeed sounds like a persuasive argument.
In that case I'm seeing more problems with the gliders and the catching ball than with the Pals.
Having said that. I just found a way more persuasive argument. Both Nintendo and the author of this game are Japanese, which means they would be subject to Japanese law. Japanese law is a lot stricter on derivative works than US law if I understand it correctly.
They need the work to be adapted.
Pokemon is more a brand than a single work(it's not even from a single author) and the gameplay doesn't look really Pokemon like.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Others are arguing about the possible copyright infringement of Nintendo.
I myself am more curious if Ubisoft would consider the use of their style and gliders an infringement.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dlove67

Quoting: soulsourceI'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...

What copyright claim would Nintendo have?

I would guess that they would argue that the "pals" are derivative Pokémons.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: beko

Quoting: LoudTechieBut are you a generation X gamer.

I'd have to look up what that means.

Does that answer your question?

Nah, I had to look it up too.
It means that you were born in the seventies.
1965 -1980

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: bekoTell me. I'm an X [X4 currently] gamer. That's ruining my childhood memories of the X-Verse.

…or on any 4X game, of course.

But are you a generation X gamer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments