I mean unlicensed is unlicensed. And its a tangible product. I'd say making an NFT, a nothing scam, is less bad than actually selling physical merchandise.
"[Ryval] Wants To Gamify Suing People Using Crypto Tokens" - Vice
- Thread starter Cheetodust
- Start date
Two arguments I would make are:
1: Transformative works.
2: From a moral perspective as opposed to a legal one they can be viewed differently. The artist who created Gengar, gets no benefit whether it's a Jimporium shirt or a Nintendo shirt... So like fuck Nintendo. I don't think Sterling would release unlicensed merch of artist owned properties.
Taking money out of the equation, I'd be much more worried that a person's actual likeness is being used without their permission rather than some internet person filching JPEGs to use on a button pin. Especially when said likeness might come from someone who is dead.
That said, the heck is Sterling doing selling Pokemon pins? I didn't even think they were that big of a fan. And frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone would be interested in half the items they've listed on their website.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,491
- 3,437
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I would say what Jim has is along the lines of selling fan merch at a con. Technically illegal, but small enough scale that almost no company would care enough to pursue it, partially since it would cost a lot for very little gain, and partially since you get fan backlash for going after small creators. But, that is also assuming that he didn't get a license for them. Jim is a contentious figure, if someone wanted to hit them then I can bet they would report something like that to Nintendo in hopes it would get him in trouble.
Uh...transformative works only apply to copyright strikes, not unlicensed merchandise. And even then, this is original because its not actually using EA's name, just a similar font: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0020/5570/0591/products/ButtonEABlack_360x.jpg?v=1625939832
This: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0...-4D62-ADE7-1AF7FCFA9F60_360x.jpg?v=1636471735
is straight up called an Ekans Button. Ekans is a trademarked name, and the name of the artist who made this drawing is DrawAllThePokemon.
Morally speaking is kinda irrelevant as people don't have to share the same morals. Jim, by definition, is profiting off of someone else's design, owned by a different company, and without the legal permission to do so. I'm not seeing much difference legally in that and making a Jim NFT.
Pretty sure I mentioned this last time, but I am assuming there must be some kind of loophole for transformative works for merchandise in order for companies like QWERTEE to get away with it.
Did they get DrawAllThePokemon's permission? If they didn't then yeah, fuck that. But I know the other pokemon merch they had permission from the artist to use. So I am assuming it's the same story here.
As for trademark, again. Don't care, the artist doesn't benefit from the trademark. Only a billion dollar corporation that ha dno creative input benefits from it.
Again it might not be legally different. But laws aren't necessarily right or just. If you want to say they are wrong for doing it, then that's your perspective, if you want to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy on their part then I'd have to disagree. I imagine Jim's issue with the NFT thing is farore based on morality than legality so the difference is your issue, not theirs.
For example selling weed and heroinare both illegal. I am completely okay with people selling weed. I think heroine dealers are vultures and would support kneecapping them.
How many morally good actions require a legal technicality to earn money?
Just saying, if there is a legal technicality to allow Jim to sell Pokemon merch, OR their production is so small its not worth enforcing the laws, that doesn't sound very moral. In fact that sounds like disregarding ones morals about stealing to make money.
To use your drug analogy, Jim is selling weed, NFT are hardcore drugs, and Jim openly and loudly saying drug dealers are bad, and drugs hurt people, now please give me money for drugs.
It depends. Settlements are decided behind the scenes, but everything else is in the court records, and all court documents are a matter of public record (unless a legislative provision or court order restricts public access).
Just wait till lawyers start betting against themselves and throwing the case. Or witnesses, or...
That's called "conflict of interests" and it already exist (which have them thrown out of the case at best and disbarred at worst)
If that merchandise is actually unlicensed, you can bet Nintendo will hit with a cease and desist; because Nintendo does that all the time (from influencers using Pokemon in their Internet avatars to fans throwing Pokemon-themed parties). So far, nothing...
I mean to stay on topic, perfectly legal weed dispenseries were constantly being raided by police.
Then there's been illegal strike interventions trying to prevent striking workers from using legal means to fight for higher wages and better conditions. In ireland it was illegal to sell contraceptives up until the 80's without a prescription so people would travel to the North.
If you don't believe perfeclty moral acts have had to skirt or entirely operate outside of the law then you have a frankly naive view of how fair the world is.
Doesn't really sound immoral either, divorced of context.
Again, it's only disregarding their morals about stealing if you assume they have the same morals on ownership as you.
Again,only if you strip away context and nuance from the situation. It would be more like Jim is selling weed and NFT's are hardcore drugs and Jim is saying selling hardcore drugs is bad. Context matters.
Once again, I'm not even arguing whether Jim is right or wrong to sell that merch. What I'm arguing against is you trying to paint them as a hypocrite when that only works if they view the concept of ownership the same way you do. Right or wrong is irrelevant here, all that we're arguing is that there IS a moral consistency in what Jim says and what they do.
What you're talking about is Unauthorised Reproduction of Intellectual Property or as it's more commonly known when applied to digital media 'piracy'(yarrrr). International IP law really frowns on that kind of thing.
Like a president funnelling money into his own businesses is also a conflict of interest. Or congressmen owning stocks is also a conflict of interest. Or government advisors going on to get lobbying jobs in the private sector and vice versa is a conflict of interest.
Streamer Ice Poseidon admits to scamming his followers out of $500,000 with his "Cxcoin" made for streamers
Paul Denino, also known as "Ice Poseidon", is a livestreamer, Internet personality, and cryptocurrency enthusiast. In July 2021 he launched Cxcoin, a forked project he said was intended specifically to allow streamers and other content creators to earn money. Denino had said in an earlier video...
-Streamer says that if he creates a crypto he'll cash out leaving everyone else holding the bag.
-Creates crypto
-Cashes out leaving everyone else holding the bag
Crypto bros are just the dumbest people.
So wealthy scumbags have found a new way to fuck poor people out of their money. Color me surprised.
The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to steal.
The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to steal.