Why Hasn't Nintendo Axed Pokémon Showdown?
Added 2024-07-31 04:15:45 +0000 UTCHi Patrons!! Sorry about the slow upload again. I'll make it up to you in the future: maybe with a short podcast style audio recording, perhaps!
Here's the ad-free video for all of you though! The description follows, below:
---
Nintendo has a famously itchy trigger finger when it comes to firing off Cease & Desists. In the past few years, we've seen all kinds of Nintendo fan projects get taken down, from fan games, to emulators, to even strategy guides! In all of the videos I've made covering this topic though, there's a single stand-out that appears in every comments section: what about Pokémon Showdown??
How exactly has Showdown survived, where seemingly everyone else has perished? Is it because the Pokémon Company handles things differently than Nintendo proper? Is it because Showdown is doing something right, that the others aren't?
Join me in a tedious, but sometimes, I hope, fun journey into the depths of IP law, as we consider the question Why Hasn't Pokémon Showdown Been Axed?
Comments
Effectively, a long legal way of stating "because PS! and Pokemon end up bolstering each other in different ways, there's no reason to claim infringement when it benefits Pokemon as an IP to have it exist" Which, I don't mind, as the legal weeds of why this answer works is exactly what I wanted to know :P The differences stated between trademark, copyright, and IP law are also very useful refreshers! It's very specific in all the right ways. I realize how often this distinction needs to be gone over seems pretty redundant but there's new little nuances I realize about it each time you go over it. "value is stored in the brands" also hit me straight in the funny bone Your analogies to Pokemon mechanics are pretty useful, the Whirlwind one to describe an affirmative defense is really good on multiple levels The entire "What To Avoid On The Legal Side (generally)" section is incredibly good and are a good baseline for rules that are easily enough understood to try and keep the balance and make everyone happier. I came very close to using the a-word here, but to put it more succintly, if any fan work creator were thinking of going to go any farther than this, they should probably ask you for a quote, lmao. It's funny how much of it lines up with what people interpret as fair use, so in a way they aren't entirely wrong, but you also can't claim fair use unless you want to go to a court. I suppose many could argue that it's semantics but the nature of an affirmative defense is important because they can't try to use it as a legal shield. The promotion angle is also why the "Kotaku kiss of death" is so dangerous, like fan work creators should be begging like "please for the love of all that is great do not put me in a gaming magazine". I remember people being like "oh no PS is in Kotaku, the end times are upon us!" but if anything, PS getting covered by Kotaku and not dying shows how robust its cooperation with the Pokemon IP is. I know we've been over this before, but the whole "must require shows of force" doctrine surrounding IP law is so bad in the modern era and arguably has never been good - the only reason it was ever remotely ok was because the proliferation of information was limited. In the 1960s you could make a Popeye drawing in your house and Fleischer would never see it and even show your friends or whatever. Now online, people build platforms with these same kinds of things, but being so publically accessible necessitates DMCA takedowns to keep your trademark, and the fact that it has been settled out of court so many times is for the best for everyone... Obviously uploading your own guidebook scans while copyright is still in play on said book is infringement, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but the nature of the infringement was something so old and never released in the States that common sense once again scrapes roughly against legal best practice. This is more of an argument for copyright getting shorter terms (maybe) and I hope there's a good faith public forum debate about this before a reasonable law is drafted, but knowing the nature of government (especially in 2024) there's...other priorities. Arguably copyright law is good enough but that depends on who you ask. I've seen panels with IP lawyers in music rights who say it's basically about as optimal as it could be, and other people working in copyright offices in the corner of games for library lending saying the DMCA is a harsh gatekeeper by design and lobbies are the issue with it. The distinction between Nintendo, TPCi, Game Freak, and Creatures is something we can nerd out about together because I've spent an inordinate amount of time looking into it for understanding Pokemon logistics '.v. Maybe I am secretly the most boring person in the room The actual analysis part makes perfect sense because Pokemon as a brand has different values from me as a gamer, and Pokemon's games exist to be a vehicle of the brand. Being a good gaming experience is...by a lot of measures a bonus more than the goal. It does hurt the brand to be a bad game, but Pokemon is so much more than one game or set of games, so the pain of blows is negligible. I think this is why a lot of ROM hacks that "do a Pokemon game better" tend to go under the radar unless they make themselves known. Pokemon being a good game series is not its primary laser focus, so provided that they don't try too hard to directly compete, they can lay in the Pokemon forums and stuff. They can't acknowledge their legitimacy in any meaningful way or anything, though. Great video as always :) I feel like this case was already pretty well understood, but having all the pieces laid out in such an efficient manner is sure to help more people understand! Sorry for the text wall, I'm very passionate about this topic. Thank you for covering it!
WishMakers
2024-08-02 19:00:34 +0000 UTCYour videos never fail to entertain, even while explaining weird and complicated concepts. And as a brazillian, that would explain the situation the past 10 or so years...
lChronosl
2024-07-31 14:43:22 +0000 UTC
