NINTENDO

STILL

CUTE
AND
FUNNY

DON'T WORRY PRINCESS, IT'S JUST A MASK

Attached: zelda light of courage link.jpg (376x572, 27K)

Her pointy polygon ass will kill you.

UP

Right couldn’t possibly look more souless.

this
these people are all zoomers in this thread

jesus fuck you're retarded

gaming is saved

Attached: 1558054870334.png (980x980, 1.17M)

go back to your discord, you aren't welcome here

>spherical fairy
holy shit
holy FUCK
Nu-zelda nu-fans are retarded.

Attached: zelda navi.jpg (812x900, 1.17M)

it already does hnnnnnnnnnnnggggg

what the fuck

You don’t want to. I’ve been within near vicinity to her and like every other character you talk to in the game, she smells like the worst pile of horse shit you have ever smelled in your life. The horrible unforgettable smell, it’s just not worth it.

They don’t.

sensible chuckle

Literal demons couldn't suck the soul out of something this hard

Would you be willing to lend out your machine? I wish to know what Liara smells like.

>wait 15 minutes
>noseblind

nothing you say can deter my dreams of destroying her purity.

>straight up stealing N*ntendo content
Nintendo is going to KILL this man!

Those eyes seem like something you'd see in a creepypasta version of the game. Rest is fine tho

Trust me man you don't want to do it. I've seen one my friends try it out for himself and he was never the same after. Settle for someone like Lorelei, she's a lot more mature and keeps herself well groomed, definitely someone I could get behind (and have).

It's gone friend.

AAA

>pucc so good it changes a man

count me in.

where is the right from

THERE'S A MAN

The fuck is this abomination and mockery of the original? How did they find a way to make it look worse?

She doesn't have a bush. Her kind never age past childhood so she's stuck forever a loli.

What the fuck was he thinking with that ground tessellation.

soulless

Terrifying

KEK THIS MAN

I think it's from the BOTW sequel.

HIYA!

What the fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=C1Y_d_Lhp60

Attached: 1362365682005.gif (260x146, 1.15M)

Copyright, in modern times, has been perverted so extensively that it now causes the opposite of what it was originally intended to.

So here is how it started, way back in 1790:

>The Congress shall have Power...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As you can see, the intent of copyright was to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" which includes art like painting, music, and film.

By granting ownership of an idea, the creator of that idea is able to profit off of it. This, in turn, creates a financial incentive for artists to create new ideas.

But, unlike physical property, there is no practical reason for "intellectual property" to be protected. Physical property, for example, is a shirt. It is important to know who a shirt belongs to. If you and me disagree about who owns a shirt, there's a problem because only one of us can wear the shirt. If we both tried it would tear in half. Physical property is a house. If we disagree about who owns a house, we need to find the answer. We can't both live there with our families, setting our own schedules. Thus, shirts and houses are physical property that need to be protected by law.

Intellectual property is different because an idea can be shared. I can tell you the idea of a superhero I had, and I don't lose an ounce of it. A thousand people can have the same idea and it does not break. It does not need to be protected.

Thus, the sole purpose of granting ownership to an idea is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." By offering ownership to ideas, Congress hopes that I will make my idea a reality by writing a story, making a film etc. - thus adding to the commonwealth that we all enjoy.

So does modern copyright do this? Yes, sometimes...but it usually does the opposite instead.

Over the past two hundred and thirty years, a critical perversion to copyright law was the loss of "limited terms." To show you this, here is a timeline of major changes to copyright law:

Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1831 – extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
Copyright Act of 1909 – extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 – removed the requirement for renewal
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 – extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) – criminalized some cases of copyright infringement and established the Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime.

As you can see, the original duration of copyright was 14 years with an option to renew once (for a maximum of 28 years total.)

This is almost unimaginable compared to today's concept of copyright, which can last for 120 years or more automatically, and 70 years at a minimum. Yes, the minimum duration is now two and a half times longer than the maximum was originally. Wow!

What does this mean?
Established brands are much easier to market, and therefore less risky. This makes everlasting copyright an important tool for the giants of modern entertainment like Disney. Why fund a director's new idea for a superhero when you can just pump out Spider-Man 17? Or Toy Story 5? Or Star Wars Episode 21?

Ironically, this means that copyright has been twisted to now lead to less creativity and new ideas making it to film.

On the other hand, it also robs the commonwealth of the ability to express their own culture. The children who grew up with A New Hope turned 41 this year. Think about that...they were born into a world where Star Wars has always existed (from their perspective), they got education, careers, their own families. Some went to film school, or became writers because they were inspired by Star Wars. But sadly, they will most likely retire and die in a world where they never got to make a dollar adding to the thing they loved.

So who gets to make a Star Wars film instead? Only whoever Kathleen Kennedy (CEO of Lucasfilm) feels like...Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams, I guess. Out of an entire generation and culture.

You might mention fan films or fan fiction as a counter-point but this is irrelevant. By removing the ability to profit, these writers would be foolish to spend the time and energy (for writing) and the money (for filming) necessary to bring those stories to life. People need to eat, they can't go into crippling debt just to express their culture. So, without a way to profit, fan fiction and film will always be a very low tier of art - rushed out, passion projects or just for practice/experience - meaningless in the large scale of things.

Attached: Smokers Voice Intensifies.png (1348x909, 1.01M)

What would Star Wars look like without the perversion of copyright?
Continuing with Star Wars as an example, let's imagine for a minute that copyright worked the way a modern researcher determined would be mathematically optimal - 15 years automatically with no renewal.
arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/

It may seem crazy, but let's roll with it.

Copyright begins at publication. For Star Wars, this was 1977 - but not all of Star Wars. Some elements did not premiere until later. Therefore, certain elements would enter the public domain later than others. For example:

1977 - Luke Skywalker, The Death Star, lightsabers, Tatooine
1980 - Hoth, Lando, Yoda and AT-ATs
1983 - The Emperor, Endor, thermal detonators and Admiral Ackbar

Hypothetically, these ideas would enter public domain 15 years later, in:

1992 - Luke Skywalker, The Death Star, lightsabers, Tatooine
1995 - Hoth, Lando, Yoda and AT-ATs
1998 - The Emperor, Endor, thermal detonators and Admiral Ackbar

This means that, by 1999, anyone could publish their own Star Wars book using every character, planet, concept from the original trilogy (like Han Solo, Cloud City or The Force) and have it available for sale on the shelves of Barnes and Noble. And any producer with the funds could greenlight a film.

Just like that, suddenly entertainment business would need to compete to bring us the best possible Star Wars they could. Fox, Sony, Disney would all be sending scripts to Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer - tripping over themselves to write the best story they could create - trying to convince them to take the role. Copies sent off to Lucas for that incredibly valuable "author approved" signature.

What did we get in 1999 instead? The Phantom Menace. And everybody got tricked into buying the Special Editions.

Which version of 1999 would you prefer?

As it is, Disney can offer whatever quality they want - even if it's garbage. They have a monopoly on the property. They could decided tomorrow that they don't want any more new Star Wars. They could sit on the property for 50 years, publishing nothing - no new books, films, games, nothing - and there's not a thing we could do about it.

A cornerstone of our culture...complete control.

Wouldn't this be unfair to George Lucas and original creators?
No. Fifteen years is a long time.

>By 1999, Lucas was worth over $2 billion. articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/28/business/fi-27203

Not bad...an entire generation of fans had thanked him for adding to our culture by giving him a huge pile of money. And, since the property would be free to anyone there would be nothing stopping Lucas from continuing to sell stories from the galaxy he created. As a bonus, anything with his name attached would always have the advantage at the box office.

Another example to look at would be J.K. Rowling. Fifteen years after she published Sorceror's Stone, Rowling was already so tired of being a billionaire businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-is-no-longer-a-billionaire-booted-off-forbes-list-2012-3 that she donated $160 million to charity. Again, not a bad trade for enriching our culture by sharing her idea.

Fifteen years is a long time.

Someone post it.!.!.

So how did this happen?
Well, in short, because nobody cares. Or, at least...they didn't. The problem of copyright is extremely complicated, and the victims are hard to notice.

Who cares if a thousand great Star Wars books are never written, because there's no money in it? Who cares if a thousand directors and screenwriters never film a single scene in that galaxy they grew up imagining? It's an abstract ailment.

On the other hand...who cares if all we get is garbage from here on out - and the Star Wars brand dies because it's being run by a corporation that has no creativity or love of the source material? A corporation who sees Star Wars, not as a cultural cornerstone, but an asset to be squeezed of every last dollar. And when it finally disappears some pundit will say "This is how it had to be. It was all just nostalgia from the beginning." and everyone will go back to sleep. This sounds more familiar. Seems to become more concrete by the day, doesn't it?

I look especially to the DC characters like Batman and Superman. A viable live-action version of Superman flying hit theaters in 1978 but, because of everlasting copyright law, Batman and Superman didn't meet on screen for another 40 years, and then the result was a complete corporate embarrassment. Despite this, DC has yet to fix their course, and why should they? It's not like anybody else can make a competing film with the characters...

So maybe we're finally nearing the breaking point.

Maybe Axanar was the canary in the coalmine. Maybe Aperion was the shot across the bow.

I guess we'll see.

This copypasta is gay and I'm definitely not reading it in this meme thread

Wrong thread, my man

Attached: Steveworld.png (1920x1080, 2.27M)

>that ground tesselation
Has this dude ever walked outside?

based retard/bot/schizo

What, you never had a going into games machine when you were younger?
pffft faggot

Attached: 1550189385366.png (1067x851, 236K)

Imagine if this kid made his own Mario game, but with a profit motive? He'd be able to raise money on Patreon and deliver a far higher quality game than the half assed thing he did in his spare time.

Oh, and Nintendo would still make new Mario games and still make plenty of money. They would just have to compete with more competent developers.

THERES A MAN WITH ARTISTIC VISION

Goodbye, Ganon

Attached: 1559725161635.jpg (1024x958, 76K)

Why did you make your tulpa in the bathroom?