And profit. Entertainment and profit. Afterall, when you are challenged by others like yourself and your Pokemon defeat theirs you do win money.Andy Chalk said:Have you ever really thought about what actually goes on in Pokemon? It's basically dogfighting for kids. You trap the little beasts, stuff them into tiny cages, "train" them to make them more powerful and dangerous, and only let them out when you want them to fight for your entertainment. Nasty stuff, really.
Daaaah Whoosh said:I thought PETA was for the euthenization of domesticized animals, not the freeing of them.
teebeeohh said:wait wouldn't peta kill every last pokemon ever owned by a trainer?
You, sir or ma'am, have won the internet.Toilet said:OH NO WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE DIGITAL ONES AND ZEROS!
THINK OF THE ONES AND ZEROS!
gardian06 said:who taught PETA flash? who? whoever did you have some explaining to do.
when do the copywrite charges start dropping I mean like hardcore. Pokemon is a registered trade mark so is their likenesses. I mean Nintendo could probably crush PETA financially without even sweating. unless Nintendo is afraid that their Redmond office will get firebombed or something.
EvilChameleon said:This won't stay long with Nintendo's copyright lawyers on the case.
It's a parody that wasn't made for monetary gain (That is, they aren't selling it).gigastar said:Hey, Nintendo, unliscenced use of your biggest IP right there by an internet hate figure.
Go nuts!
It's worse than that. In the game, Ash is weak to water attacks. He can't be an electric type!Regiment said:...That's not a proper Pokemon card. It's a Trainer card, but it has HP, which means it's a Pokemon. It has three attacks, which only appear on Pokemon, but they all cost the same and all do far too little damage (Pokemon cards do damage in multiples of 10). If it's a Pokemon, it should have more stats across the bottom. If it's a Pokemon, it should have an evolutionary stage. I've seen better bootleg cards than that - ones that can't spell words like "deck".
no. Nintendo does have right to sue. because it is using the name of a property that they have trademarked, and using it without authorization. maybe if it was a small viewing, or such, but they are potentially gaining profit from it through page hits, and requesting donations which is still considered profit. the same way that Happy Birthday is still under copyright, and technically the holder of that should receive royalties every time it is sung.Kopikatsu said:gardian06 said:who taught PETA flash? who? whoever did you have some explaining to do.
when do the copywrite charges start dropping I mean like hardcore. Pokemon is a registered trade mark so is their likenesses. I mean Nintendo could probably crush PETA financially without even sweating. unless Nintendo is afraid that their Redmond office will get firebombed or something.EvilChameleon said:This won't stay long with Nintendo's copyright lawyers on the case.It's a parody that wasn't made for monetary gain (That is, they aren't selling it).gigastar said:Hey, Nintendo, unliscenced use of your biggest IP right there by an internet hate figure.
Go nuts!
Pokemon: Black and Blue is doubly protected. Nintendo can't do nothin'.
Captcha: Fair Play
Very close Captcha, but it's actually 'Fair Use'.
I hate you, I just escaped the Game...el_kabong said:I have a game parody in response to PETA's attention-grabbing.
It's called THE GAME: PETA edition.
The rules are as follows:
1. If you think about PETA, you lose.
2. If you talk about PETA, you lose.
3. If you write about PETA, you lose.
If they did not do it for Mario, they wont do it here.gardian06 said:who taught PETA flash? who? whoever did you have some explaining to do.
when do the copywrite charges start dropping I mean like hardcore. Pokemon is a registered trade mark so is their likenesses. I mean Nintendo could probably crush PETA financially without even sweating. unless Nintendo is afraid that their Redmond office will get firebombed or something.