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.
I don’t understand what your angle is. It feels like you’re really trying to win an argument, except you seem to be the only one arguing.
I’ve been trying to sort out a misunderstanding, and it looks like you’re trying to win something. The misunderstanding is sorted out. So, I guess you win, too?
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.
What are you confused about?
I don’t understand what your angle is. It feels like you’re really trying to win an argument, except you seem to be the only one arguing.
I’ve been trying to sort out a misunderstanding, and it looks like you’re trying to win something. The misunderstanding is sorted out. So, I guess you win, too?