You’ve said that, but this doesn’t seem to be a copyright issue. As far as I know, Ryujinx used NONE of Nintendo’s proprietary material whatsoever. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

What I’m seeing isn’t an IP issue at all - it’s simple strong-arming.

The initial argument that started all of this chain was a statement that Nintendo was understandable in their legal action, and I took and STILL take issue with that.

“They are absolutely within their rights to approach the developers of Ryujinx and threaten to sue them.”

While this is TECHNICALLY true in the most literal sense of the word, it carries the implication that there is something justifiable at some level about the actions they’ve taken.

My response is it’s correct in only the most pedantic sense, THIS is the element I find egregious for how much it understates just how disgusting Nintendo’s actions are. This is nothing more than a mafia shakedown with lawyers instead of grunts, and to play it down like that is improper.

IP, copyright, shutting down streamers… all of this is a totally separate issue, and all of THAT activity is actually SUPPORTED by law.

Shutting down Ryujinx is on a massively different level. It’s neither a copyright issue OR a legality issue. It’s a direct strong-arming contrary to established law, and THAT is what this thread is about. There are other articles to discuss IP and content creators, which are a completely different issue with different repercussions.

And Elon Musk was “legally in the clear” to sue a trade group into non-existence over the idea that companies deciding to boycott his site independently was collusion.

I am objecting loudly and powerfully to “legally in the clear” being equated with “acceptable” or “within the spirit of the law.”

Make no mistake. As far as we know, this is only legally in the clear because the developers are unable to fight it. That does NOT make Nintendo’s action correct. By LAW the developers are in the right, they simply cannot afford to defend themselves. If your claim is that it is technically legal to threaten to sue anybody you want, you are correct and also terrifyingly shortsighted. Inability of someone to defend their rights for financial reasons is a miscarriage of justice. Given the options of smugly pointing out the technical situation or ranting about the injustice, I’ll take the latter.

Let’s put it another way… You’re absolutely right. Nintendo is LEGALLY in the right to bully someone into submission using the threat of a lawsuit they cannot afford with overwhelming money. The legal system can’t touch them.

But that means the ONLY place where Nintendo will EVER face ANY kind of consequences is in the court of public opinion, so why on EARTH would your take on the situation be, “Oh well… nothing we can do.” It’s not much, but it’s the ONLY lever you have, and to relinquish it is fatalistic, shortsighted, and overall inconceivable as a strategy.

This is a fair point. I just get so sick of seeing the constant erosion of individual rights in the technology space due to apathy and under reactions, and it’s a more or less constant, ongoing slide to the point where moments like this become absolutely infuriating.

Perhaps. But I see a lot of hand rubbing and “oh welling” from people when this is a legitimate moment for anger at the precedence this sets. I understand the urge to make it make sense, but the fact is people either tacitly accepting this activity as reasonable or arguing about the red herring of whether the source code is still available to sit and rot with nobody touching it but shady scam artists, not only moves the bar on what what Nintendo and other companies see they can get away with, it has a chilling effect on future preservation efforts among the constantly shrinking pool of people skilled enough in low level development to do this kind of work.

I guess my point is, I’m seeing very few voices that are sufficiently concerned or angry enough about this event considering the far reaching consequences it’s going to have.

We shouldn’t in ANY way be normalizing this activity, and our reaction shouldn’t be “Of COURSE they did this.” Although I guess I shouldn’t be surprised after we just watched Boeing murder a half dozen of its whistleblowers and the most people did was make a few memes. We’re living in a literal dystopia, apparently.

You’re incorrect. Creating an emulator is not illegal. Nintendo has the legal right to threaten to sue someone, but if you are threatening to sue for something that is not a crime, and you know that, and you do it anyway in the hopes of bankrupting them before the case settles, that’s not a legal proceeding, it’s extortion. I can threaten to sue you for cooking pancakes in your house, and while it’s technically ALLOWED for me to do that, it’s clearly and obviously not a case I would win, but if the threat of making your life hell is prominent enough, you might get forced into backing down, which is exactly what’s happening here.

They would absolutely NOT lose in court for creating an emulator. I cannot stress enough exactly how legal emulation is. It’s as legal as making your pancakes. The only way they would lose in court is if there is some EXTRA thing they’ve done that we don’t know about. If all they’ve done is create and distribute Ryujinx, there is absolutely NO way Nintendo would win a case in the US. This is settled law, and saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so, although it DOES embolden companies to bullshit developers with more bogus threats in the future.

They aren’t working within any rights. Emulator production is a legal right that Nintendo has neither the ability to bestow nor deny. It’s the founding legal rationale behind virtualization as a technology. This is the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to shut up - the forced relinquishing of your rights through threat of force, and it’s a little frightening to watch people suggest otherwise. This has played out in court and is settled law. Bleem! went BANKRUPT to secure a legal victory against SONY and establish that emulators are completely legal and there is no “gray area” about them, and you should be in less of a hurry to throw legal rights away because “Well, Nintendo said so…”

Sure, at the surface level of tweeting back and forth, there is nothing vile. But the very act of using the platform funds an agent of chaos that is doing very real harm, and to ignore that because it is inconvenient is at the most charitable interpretation a selfish and callous act. There are other means of discourse, and those with input that is valuable will follow you.

Maybe, just maybe, if your followers aren’t willing to give up something vile because it’s giving them a dopamine hit, they’re not adding as much value to your life as you think.

I don’t get your point… are you suggesting NOT mind-melding is unethical?

Because it IS dangerous. Trek lore has established that mind melds carry the risk of neurological damage, emotional overload, and Panar Syndrome in the melder.

And even if all of those risks are mitigated, mind-melds are incredibly personal and Vulcans don’t engage in them flippantly.

Don’t you realize you’re speaking to the main character?

Next year? I expect an announcement before the end of summer.

That is true, but until now we’ve mostly been able to enjoy the best of both without compromise or major obstacles, and even AAA games can offer quality, especially considering the value add of the modding community. We got all the benefit of a AAA title with customization and community at a fraction of the price. Sure, indies will still be there and delivering great quality no matter what, but more actively engaged big companies is still a net loss to PC gaming.

I’m scared. As soon as it becomes profitable, companies in the gaming space will be rushing to enshitiffy PC gaming the way they’re doing with consoles. Big, public game companies not paying attention to the PC space is a GOOD thing.

That’s a gatekeepers argument.

I’m not saying that IS what’s going to happen. Please don’t put words in my mouth. But to say there is ZERO concern that it CAN happen is to ignore a very realistic scenario.

You’re right, I’m not a part of the target demographic. But that’s not point. The point is if that demographic wants what is being offered. Sure, this is targeted at them, but is their audience out there asking for this? If there is an audience, absolutely, they should have the show they want.

I’m not ignoring that there have been varied tones in various Trek shows. I am however, pointing out that not all of those tones have been successful, and that’s a cause for concern. Star Trek isn’t some public domain franchise that can be picked up at any time by anyone, Paramount’s begrudging allowance for fan projects not withstanding. The success of the franchise and the ability to keep new Trek coming depends on the success of the series that are produced. If a series cannot sustain an audience, it hurts the viability of the franchise as a whole in the eyes of the people who fund production, and that is a legitimate concern.

But while I don’t know that there is a teenage Star Trek audience looking for a show targeted at them, I KNOW there is an audience looking for the tone of the older Star Trek show tones because they are vocally and visibly looking for it right now.

I’m not arguing a Star Trek show targeted to teenagers shouldn’t exist because I don’t want it. That’s a nonsense argument. I’m arguing the simple reality that there are limited resources for producing these shows, and Paramount is the only company that gets to make them. This is not some projected negativity - this is simple reality. And for all the idealized, lofty goals there are, if they don’t establish and keep an audience, Paramount will shut them down. It’s not gatekeeping to suggest building an audience where one doesn’t exist yet is harder than keeping an existing one, and it’s a gamble with the future of the franchise to paint such a wide target, particularly without an anchor series that you can point to and say “This is the secure flagship series we’re building these other series around.” That doesn’t exist. Every single one of the current series is in a precarious position. That is a cause for concern.

Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that many of us became Star Trek fans during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era, and we were teenagers then. Those shows were not specifically targeted at us, but they still captured our imagination and won us over. A show doesn’t have to be about teenagers to appeal to teenagers. Again, this is not to say this SHOULDN’T exist, but you are making it sound like the idea that thinking Paramount could focus their efforts elsewhere instead is somehow an attack on teenagers, and some form of discrimination. I assure you, that is not my intent, and I don’t think it’s anybody else’s either. There are lots of reasons to be concerned this is not the right path, or that it might not succeed, other than having some kind of agenda against the young.

I see your last response to me as a bit of an overreaction, but regardless, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I apologize for allowing it to overcome me and overreacting myself to make this response seem overly hostile, but at the end of the day it certainly sounds like there is no argument that could be made to you that would legitimize someone’s concern that Starfleet Academy might not be the right path for the franchise to take, and if that’s the case, you’re right that there’s no point in continuing the discussion. I hope you continue to enjoy the franchise we love and wish you the best, regardless.

Goodbye.

A totally valid point of view.

But it’s also a valid point of view to point out that in spite of its fans, Enterprise was still canceled. And shows in the franchise being killed off frequently due to unsustainable interest is ultimately not good for the franchise as a whole, regardless of individual interest in particular iterations. The ultimate fear is that such a wide range of tones attempting to capture different audiences ultimately results in none of them capturing enough of an audience to justify their existence, and then the whole franchise gets written off for another dry spell like we had post-Enterprise. That’s not good for anyone.

But like I said, why do all of those other shows get a pass but suddenly Starfleet Academy is such a problem?

I don’t know if it’s necessarily that they get a pass. As you said, Enterprise was very poorly received by many fans, and that’s more or less directly attributable at least in part to its different tone. The other series have their naysayers too, although not necessarily on a tonal basis. It’s easy for us to look back now with the benefit of hindsight and say what worked and what didn’t. So I guess the question is, we live in an era now where we get more information about what is coming that we have ever had before. When Enterprise launched, it was more or less a black box to the fans until it was actually on the air. If we had known in advance the writers/directors’ intent about Enterprise’s tone while it was in production, and voiced concern, could the final product have been altered into a version of the show that would’ve succeeded better? We can’t know now, of course, but we’re in this situation with Starfleet Academy, and if there’s enough gut feeling that there’s potential for it to be handled badly, a cautious approach might be warranted. Being left in the production’s hands WITHOUT fan feedback on potential tonal shifts HAS backfired on trek shows before.

Again, the person I was originally responding to was not showing a basic concern. It was outright gatekeeping and a very different thing than what we’re currently discussing.

Fair enough.

This is a flagrantly disingenous comparison. The creation of Starfleet Academy and focusing on a new view with new characters in an area that we know deals with these things is no where nearly comparable as taking a pre-established moment and playing it in a different tone completely. The existence of this show does not undermine or overwrite the tone of any other show like you’re suggesting with that comparison.

It’s possible I wasn’t clear here. I’m not suggesting changing the tone of it as it already exists, but that if its original tone had been different the entire tone of the film and the universe would have been completely different as well. And while I agree that Star Trek has often had many different tones over the course of all the series and media, it’s one thing to have a tone for a particular episode or two parter, and another to have such a drastically different tone for an entire series. Additionally, while we DO explore Wesley’s situation at Starfleet academy, and other aspects of younger Starfleet cadets in episodes like the DS9 episode where a ship is entirely staffed by cadets, it’s still usually viewed not primarily through their eyes, but through the eyes of the established crew, keeping the tone of the series consistent overall. This is very different than say, hypothetically, changing gears in season 6 of TNG and deciding to make Wesley the main character.

That said, the TNG episode Lower Decks handles this idea extraordinarily well, so it’s entirely possible the entire thing will work and be fine. But it’s also equally possible it could be such a drastic tonal shift that it does not. I don’t see it as unreasonable or overreacting for longtime fans to, sight unseen given the scant information we DO know, view it with wariness.

There’s more to an established universe than just the lore and plot. The tone, setting, and ethos of the world are every bit as important as the factual nature of what’s already happened. I’m not going to make a claim that the idea of a teen drama in the Star Trek universe is inconsistent with reality of the Star Trek franchise’s universe, but it is fair to say it is inconsistent with the established tone. I’m not making the claim that’s going to mean it’s bad, but it is completely fair and valid for existing fans to voice concern about that tonal shift. The tone is no less important to a series than the events that take place within them. If Luke’s hand being sliced off in Empire Strikes Back was played as a comic, silly moment, even though the events are consistent with the established universe, and in fact exactly the same, the nature of the scene and the franchise in which it happens are altered. These are not trivial concerns.

That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world.

That’s a bold claim to make, and it’s not unreasonable that someone would disagree with you on it. The point of an established universe is obviously the background that the universe brings. Otherwise you may as well just create an entirely new universe. And given that the background is the value of the universe, there is a limitation to how far you can reasonably expect to bend it before the interpretation of the universe shifts from “fresh” to “hostile”.

For example, I’m not a particularly big fan of the Avatar movies, but they’re clearly pushing a naturalistic, shamanistic anti-corporate utopian vision. It’s not my cup of tea, but that is what the universe IS. If the next movie comes out and the Nav’i create planet-wide Walmart franchise and spend two hours boosting their stock price, it is absolutely reasonable to look at that at the VERY least as a wasteful use of the franchise, and it is not negativity for fans of the franchise to complain that it is not what they signed up for.

Now, we can argue all day about where that line is, but to suggest there ISN’T one at all is extreme.