Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nintendo Promotes Music Piracy?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the such-a-cute-dog dept.

Nintendo 74

f-matic writes "A New York Times article discusses an amusing character in a popular virtual world: K.K. Slider, a travelling canine musician in Nintendo's Animal Crossing: Wild World, apparently promotes music piracy." From the article: "... it's a bit disorienting to find an 'information wants to be free' message embedded in a video game - particularly one aimed at young children and teenagers. After all, video game industry representatives, along with their brethren in the music, film and computer software industries, have long complained that this is precisely the kind of thinking that is eating away at their business models - and maybe civilization itself. "

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yams (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14294428)

From TFA:
A user called Yams also added "Yams yams yams yams yams."
... Yeah .... (FP?)

Re:Yams (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294501)

Wow...I've seen odd things in the Times, but this (which, if you haven't RTFA, is in fact in the article!) is just weird and scary. I mean Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com] -type weird, and transit-strike [google.com] -type scary. WOW.

Re:Yams (1)

badasscat (563442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294687)

Wow...I've seen odd things in the Times, but this (which, if you haven't RTFA, is in fact in the article!) is just weird and scary.

It's called humor, dude. The writer was just having a little fun with the article, which, if you hadn't noticed, is pretty ridiculous all the way around. The whole point of it is using humor to shed light on a serious subject, which is something the Times does frequently.

There's more to the Times than just the front page headlines...

Re:Yams (2, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296072)

There's more to the Times than just the front page headlines...

You're right. There's also the back-page escort ads...

Re:Yams (1)

Hitto (913085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294540)

YAMS = Yet Another Music Swapper?

Re:Yams (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294656)

Yet Another Meaningless Sentence.

Re:Yams (1)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294652)

I think LiveJournal should be used more often as a source for the NY Times. Wow.

Re:Yams (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296127)

"I think LiveJournal should be used more often as a source for the NY Times."

And as the NYT's reputation goes to hell in a handbasket, the reverse is true less and less often.

Piracy? (5, Interesting)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294455)

I didn't take this message as supporting piracy, so much as artists don't want to be screwed. I suppose DMB, Phish, Grateful Dead, Bela Fleck, and tons of other artists who allow live recordings to be redistributed for free among their fans also support piracy?

Re:Piracy? (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294507)

I suppose DMB, Phish, Grateful Dead, Bela Fleck, and tons of other artists who allow live recordings to be redistributed for free among their fans also support piracy?

No they're just dirty communists!

Re:Piracy? (2, Insightful)

secolactico (519805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295276)

I suppose DMB, Phish, Grateful Dead, Bela Fleck, and tons of other artists who allow live recordings to be redistributed for free among their fans also support piracy?

If they own the right to the songs they sing and their performance, then no. If they already sold those rights off to someone else, then yes they are.

Besides, everybody knows K.K. Slider, like most artists, has a too high opinion of himself and no record exec will touch his music with a 10 foot pole which is why he goes from town to town giving away his "air checks". And every week a different style. It's like you are trying too hard, man!
...

Sorry. I didn't mean to rant. I'm experiencing Crossing withdrawal.

Article is absolutely stupid (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294482)

'"Those industry fat cats try to put a price on my music, but it wants to be free," the canine bard says in a dialogue bubble at the bottom of the screen, after performing and giving away "copies" of a tune.'

The article comments this as: "A Nintendo video game includes a character that seems to advocate an illegal form of music file-sharing."

When was giving your OWN music away for free illegal?

Also: 'That last insight and its implications for the young people in Professor Brown's vision of the future notwithstanding, it's a bit disorienting to find an "information wants to be free" message embedded in a video game - particularly one aimed at young children and teenagers.'

Why? Good values should be taught in childhood. Sharing is good! Openness is good! Those are the values you want to teach children, not greed.

The last straw: "After all, video game industry representatives, along with their brethren in the music, film and computer software industries, have long complained that this is precisely the kind of thinking that is eating away at their business models - and maybe civilization itself. "

In other words, if you don't sell us your soul, you're going to hell! Where did we hear this already?

The article mixes nonsensical stuff in the writeup, like: 'A user called Yams also added "Yams yams yams yams yams."'

Seriously, who cares? The article is a mess mixed with propaganda. It reads the end of the world into probably an innocent thing.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (3, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294618)

When was giving your OWN music away for free illegal?

As soon as the RIAA can lobby for it!

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294637)

When was giving your OWN music away for free illegal?

Since you've signed over your profits to those industry fat cats. The RIAA's deals with music artists have a clause that prevents Microsoft from doing what it did to Spyglass: promise a percentage of the profit, and then give Internet Explorer away for free. Music artists have to follow their publisher's demands about, uh, publishing.

Not that it's a good thing. It shouldn't be possible to sign away your "moral rights" to the music. But that's the current legal situation in the US.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (2, Insightful)

Collision891 (814593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294719)

Where does it really mention that this character signed over [his] profits to those industry fat cats?

As far as I can tell, he never officially signed with any labels and if true, can do whatever he pleases with his music.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (5, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294776)

"Not that it's a good thing. It shouldn't be possible to sign away your "moral rights" to the music. But that's the current legal situation in the US."

I disagree with that completely. You see, in Hungary exactly such is the situation: You cannot sign away the "rights" to your music. There is also an added measure, that you cannot not ask payment for your music, which conveniently a civilian agency called Artisjus enforces after deducting a certain percentage for their "efforts", want it or not, according to the current legislation.

That situation results in this nonsense: Let's suppose that you want to give music away for free on your homepage. Artisjus demands from you around 50 cents for each download. They then deduce around 10% of the total you payed to be able to put your own music for free on the website and make some trickery with charts etc, and in a lucky case you get around 10 cents back from Artisjus as your "profit". That is all in the name of protecting the artist using early 20th century legislation which was supposed to prevent artists being pressured into signing their rights away over music they made.

This stupid law killed my favorite amateur music compilation which was housed on some popular hungarian IT magazine's CD back in 1998.

Trust me, you don't want the government to protect you. In the end it will be perverted and used against you.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14295352)

The hilarious part? This is already done in the US under the mostly ignored RIAA member company "SoundExchange" and the CARP royalty payment agreement.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295558)

I disagree with that completely. You see, in Hungary exactly such is the situation: You cannot sign away the "rights" to your music.

What you talk about aren't "moral rights", which is a very specific subset of traditional copyright rights. See here [intellectu...rty.gov.uk] , for instance, for a UK take on the term, though it looks familiar to me in the French context as well. The moral rights are:
  • to be identified as the author of the work or director of the film in certain circumstances, e.g. when copies are issued to the public
  • to object to derogatory treatment of the work or film which amounts to a distortion or mutilation or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director
The second would be controversial in the United States under our First Amendment rules, but I do like the first, personally.

At any rate, they don't have anything to do with your right to compensation chosen under free-market rules.

This post corrects both the parent and the grandparent, which first brought up the term "moral rights" but then didn't talk about any of them. It's a well-defined term with a well-defined meaning, not a fuzzy thing to use randomly in an argument.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (0)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14305612)

Trust me, you don't want the government to protect you. In the end it will be perverted and used against you.

Yeah, because we'd all be so much better off without all those stupid traffic laws, drug regulations and public roads.

Okay, I understand your point, and I agree to a point. But try not to be so blinded by ideology: there are some things that government does well. It's also arguable that there's plenty more it could do, and it is not obvious that it would be a bad thing. Whether it is or not may not be certain, but then, that's why people argue about these things.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14313629)

Ah, another "-1 Overrated" mod.

Doesn't this guy, like, have better uses for his mod points? I know when I get 'em, I usually run out too soon. In contrast, probably all this guy does with 'em is mod people down, anonymously, using the metamod-immune method.

Ah well, I suppose we all need a hobby. Mine? It's whining.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297442)

It depends on what you call the "moral rights".

In Dutch copyright law (which shouldn't be too different from most other western countries), these moral rights mostly deal with the work of art itself (i.e. the context in which it may be used, modification), reproduction rights and pretty much everything that has no influence on the artistic expressions of the work can be sold.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294658)

Well it shows that the rest of the world does not have a clue and has been succesfully brainwashed. What next? A woman who has sex with a man for free is charged with not being a hooker?

This really is to weird for words. I suppose next those people who stand at the sideline of marathons with free water for the participants are going to be taken to court by SPA? People who pick up hitchhiker sued by Public Transport?

If I create something I can do with it as I please. I know this is a radical thought but not every musical artist dreams of being rich, some just want others to enjoy their music.

A dutch artist (Peter Blanker) performed at the opening of a supermarket or something (I was really young at the time) and my mother talked to him about the songs wich she couldn't buy in the store. He send her a tape wich I and my sister listened to a lot. Side A where childeren songs and Side B were adult songs. (I am not certain on th exact details, just know the tape was in our collection with his handwriting on it)

He later hosted a very popular radio show focusing on dutch music until it was cancelled during one of the many facelifts of public radio but it has remained next to impossible to buy the songs on that tape.

It is not nice to think that in this day and age his action of sending us a tape would have been considered illegal.

missed the point (2, Insightful)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294675)

Half the point of this article is nonsense. It is written as a farce on the entire idea that the big N is promoting piracy. The fact that an artist giving away free copies of his music is illegal is ridiculous, just a ridiculous as a poster making the post of "Yams yams yams yams yams." That's why Yams's comment was included in the story, to point out the farce. If you need help with that, imagine it's Jon Stewart reading the article out loud.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14294942)

When was giving your OWN music away for free illegal?

When it cuts into the poor starving execs profits. How are they meant to feed their children when they have to COMPETE?

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295018)

That's a good point. As long as the song is either original or in the public domain and they didn't sign away their rights with a label, any performer can give away their own music.

Re:Article is absolutely stupid (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297607)

When was giving your OWN music away for free illegal?

Why wouldn't it be illegal ? After all, the most often heard reason for the claim that copyright infringement is bad is that it "hurts the artists", that is, lessens the potential profits to be made for licensing copyrighted works. Now, if you give away your copyrighted material for free, it directly competes with for-profit licensing of other material, and therefore has the same effect that copyright violation is claimed to have, and should consequently be treated the same way.

Besides, only a communist would give something away for free; freedom and free market requires that everything has a price. Remember, when you are distributing your own copyrighted works for free, you are performing a terrorist action against the free markets and the megacorporations who dominate them !

Why? Good values should be taught in childhood. Sharing is good! Openness is good! Those are the values you want to teach children, not greed.

Unfortunately, that view is fundamentally incompatible with the worldview that treats everything as exploitable resources, and thinks in the terms of fences it can build to extort admission fees from use of a public resource. The latter worldview is currently the official religion of pretty much every nation on Earth, which explains the constant diminishment of rights for anyone except the political and financial elite - the tighter you have them bound, the harder you can squeeze without them slipping through your fingers.

It is not really surprising that such a worldview arose, thought. People have a need to believe in something. The believe in "The invisible hand of market forces" is simply a religion for modern times. Just look at how many posts in every Slashdot story claim that, whatever the problem is, free markets will find a solution. Or just go look at the Slashdot stories about Katrina striking New Orleans - a number of people claimed that the rescue operation went badly because there were people living on social security in the city; not all that different from the various forum posts elsewhere claiming that the whole diasaster was divine punishment for the citys tolerance of homosexuals.

The point is that if you teach your kid that sharing and opennes are good, you are teaching him to go against the current majority religion of the world; so you better teach him to expect to be a subject of the hatred of free-market fundamentalists as well. And this time there won't be any America he can flee to. Unless, of course, we get those Moon colonies established...

No. (1)

tktk (540564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294491)

From TFA : "People can read a lot into a little," Ms. Kaplan said, "but musician K.K. Slider - a guitar-playing cartoon dog - is saying only that he's a free spirit who cannot be bought and sold for any amount of money."

Someguy on some random blog posts a screenshot of K.K. Slider saying "Those industry fat cats try to put a price on my music, but it wants to be free," and then assumes Nintendo Supports Music Piracy.

in other news.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14294495)

Taco's mother just wants to be free!

Looking a wee too far into things? (1)

Hydryad (935968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294512)

I find it amusing personally that anyone would read that much into it. Yep, I would never read into something that far, not me...
*Goes and erases his draft blog post*

Wow (5, Insightful)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294525)

Ridiculous. The dog wants to give away HIS music for free and doesn't want it to be sold by industry fat cats and that somehow is stretched into Nintendo is promoting illegal music file sharing? I have a few albums on some record labels if I want to give them away free I'll damn well do it. It's MY music.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14295122)

But if you give away your music how will Sony install a rootkit on other people's computers?

Re:Wow (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295707)

But if you give away your music how will Sony install a rootkit on other people's computers?

By convincing a federal judge that you plagiarized your music from a work controlled by Sony.

Re:Wow (1)

Murasaki Skies (894086) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297474)

Welcome to Ampaari(c)aa.

The end of the world is nigh... (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294590)

Ms. Kaplan also said that K.K. wanted his music to be free in the sense of being "freed from his guitar, free from any constraints." She added, "as a dog, it's understandable that he would not want to deal with any 'fat cats.' "
Bullsh*t... the dog specifically mentionned the industry fat cats, I don't think it can be any clearer than this that what is meant is the music industry...

By lying, Ms. Kaplan is also chipping away at the foundations of civilization itself too, and she her car should be the target of a Hellfire missile like any other terrorist...

Seriously, if I try to imagine the conversation of our grandgrandgrandchildren about what brought about the end of civilization, here's my list:

1- War
2- Natural Disaster
3- Alien Invasion
4- Killer Virus
5- Rise of the Robots
...
52,324,546,123,123- Piracy?

Re:The end of the world is nigh... (1)

Ailure (853833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294676)

Tsk, everyone knows that number one reason is "Rise of the lawyers".

Better grab yer shotgun guys!

Re:The end of the world is nigh... (1)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295171)

Sometimes I amaze even myself ... I was going to say 'Rise of the Robots didn't contribute to the end of humanity, it was probably more affected by Deus Ex 2', then I realised you weren't talking about a video game.

I'm starting to think that those people that tell me I need to get out more might just be onto something. I'll just finish this level first.

Re:The end of the world is nigh... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295222)

6- Industry Fat Cats

Re:The end of the world is nigh... (2, Funny)

WhyCause (179039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296676)

...the dog specifically mentionned the industry fat cats...

Well of course a dog is upset with cats. It's the natural order of things.

Well... (3, Funny)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294648)

FTFA: After all, video game industry representatives, along with their brethren in the music, film and computer software industries, have long complained that this is precisely the kind of thinking that is eating away at their business models - and maybe civilization itself.

You know the Romans said the same thing about their business model and their civilization. Unfortunatley, they didn't think that maybe they should actually find a new model that works instead of fighting tooth and nail to make it fit to a fast changing world that made them obsolete...

Emperor MPAA: "Huns and visigoths be damned! I won't tolerate such barbaric behavior! They think they can just steal our wares without behaving."
Reasonable person: "But your highness! Maybe we should make it that we offer our treasures for a reasonable price to the barbarians! Then they wouldn't steal!"
Senator RIAA: "But they'll reverse engineer our fine artisan wares and make their own!"
Reasonable person: "But... If we don't offer our wares at a reasonable price in the online market place the barbarians will sack our cities and steal the wares !"
Emperor MPAA: "In that case... Summon the imperial army of lawyers we will crush them under our mighty sandals of justice...
(Two months later)
Emperor MPAA: "What do you mean they wiped out our army of lawyers. I thought we could sue every last person on the planet. Oh wait is that Rome burning! Oh noes the barbarians have broken down the gate! So much for that idea..."
Pope Apple the II: "If its any consolation my organization I'll be converting them to true way over 2,000 years after you guys are collecting dust in some forgotten crypt. Maybe you guys should have listed to the Reasonable person."

Re:Well... (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295315)

You know the Romans said the same thing about their business model and their civilization.

And people nowadays say the same thing about their jobs being outsourced, wanting laws passed to protect them.
Revolutionary change is frightening to those who have something to lose; It's human nature to try and maintain the status quo in those cases.

Re:Well... (2)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295492)

There are real problems with outsourcing. It involves labor, which unlike everything else "traded" on the global market, isn't a true commodity. Different countries have different labor laws, there are barriers to the free exchange of it in the form of immigration laws, etc. It's not like ball-bearings for example.

Information "Wants"?! (2, Insightful)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294674)

Information, not being sentient, doesn't _want_ anything. People, on the other hand, do want something--for nothing, when possible.

Re:Information "Wants"?! (2)

Parity (12797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294847)

Well, information 'wants' to be free in the same way that nature 'abhors' a vacuum and temperatures 'try' to equalize; it's an expressive way of describing a phenomenon. Information is by nature easy to duplicate and difficult to destroy, especially in the digital era. Whether or not information 'should' be free is another question, really. It is true, though, that many people say the former meaning the latter.

Re:Information "Wants"?! (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295386)

Information is by nature easy to duplicate and difficult to destroy, especially in the digital era. Whether or not information 'should' be free is another question, really.

I'd paraphrase it so that information, inherently, is free. People often want to make it less free, which in many cases can be considered a good thing. The information doesn't mind if you distribute a movie to everyone without the creators' permission, but the creators probably do mind.

Re:Information "Wants"?! (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14302409)

I'd paraphrase it so that information, inherently, is free.

Information can't be "inherently free," because freedom is just an idea, not a natural property. It's an abstract concept that people use to describe a situation in a particular way. Two people could see the same situation completely differently, because they have different ideas about freedom.

Statements like "information should be free," or "information wants to be free," or "information is free" are meaningless because they have no context. Freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, it only exists in the minds of people.

Note to self (1)

Strell (877448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14294978)

Work at NY Times. It's quite obvious their reports have a lot of goddamn time on their hands.

No way... (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295079)

I just don't get how could they get piracy and filesharing from a guitar-playing dog that just wants people to hear his music without having to pay for it.
This just shows how much do they want to criminalize anything they can.
The next step: Cartoon bird sings. "This is an unapproved performance that hurts our interests!" they'll say.

No Nintendo Doesn't (4, Insightful)

TychoCelchuuu (835690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295124)

Nintendo doesn't support piracy any more than the people who make GTA support carjacking and indiscriminate violence against innocents. It's just some character in a game, not a thinly veiled message the the top corporate echelon inserted into the game to warp impressionable children.

Re:No Nintendo Doesn't (2, Interesting)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295513)

The difference is auto owners realize that GTA is a game. The ??AA and their cronies are so detatched from reality they can't see the difference.

I don't want to know what the ??AA thinks about the idea that a person using their right of free speech to express their political/economic views, in a copyrighted, reproduced, and marketed way, is a valuable thing (in a monetary sense).

This is exactly how pundits make their living; they excersize their free speech, people pay to hear it, and the circle of life completes itself.

Pundits have a funny way of swaying public opinion... a popular pundit may be many things (including a liar), but stupid isn't one of them. Espescially when the subject is about expressing the same kind of views that earns a pundit a soft life.

How the h*ck is that a difference? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295724)

TychoCelchuuu wrote: Nintendo doesn't support piracy any more than the people who make GTA support carjacking and indiscriminate violence against innocents.

sl3xd wrote: The difference is auto owners realize that GTA is a game.

How is that in any way a difference, unless you contend that Animal Crossing: Wild World players cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?

Re:How the h*ck is that a difference? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296183)

How is that in any way a difference, unless you contend that Animal Crossing: Wild World players cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?

Right problem, wrong group.

GP said it was the ??AA that can't distinguish fantasy from reality. Of course, we knew that the first time they quoted "losses to piracy" numbers.

Re:No Nintendo Doesn't (1)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295895)

Source?

So? (1)

Ndkchk (893797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295494)

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

Re:So? (1)

SalaciousPucker (911419) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295736)

Good question. The game or at least the Animal Crossing I'm familiar with, involves a single player virtual community. It's sad that it shocks us to see what could, possibly, be different opinions offered in a community setting. Anything out of lock step and it deserves writeup in the NYT.

I'm not making a judgement on the right and wrong of piracy either. Breaking the law is breaking the law, but there are gray areas and abundant idiocy is rampant in IP laws. The point is that intellectual property is not best used by society solely to maximize profits.

What it comes down to is that this is a topic which is pertinent to the market for this game. (8 to 14 year olds maybe?) Do we lock step them into the corporate view - fileshare=bad ('say no' or 'duck and cover' in another decade) - or do we teach them all sides and let them decide what's best for society.

Fox News is 'fair and balanced' and we don't need any other opinions kids. We have alwasy been at war with Eurasia folks, move along, there is nothing to think here.

Music is not information (3, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295624)

Saying "information wants to be free", even if they actually did so, would not promote music piracy. Music is not information, it is art, and art usually does not want to be free. Price reflects quality (in an ideal world, at least), and good artists are always going to be in demand, and consequently, in money.

Re:Music is not information (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296788)

*blink*

Have you listened to the radio recently? Right. Now, have you listened to some independant bands (and I don't mean what the RIAA passes off as "Indie"?

Price certanly does NOT reflect quality in the real world.

Re:Music is not information (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297832)

Art is a subset of information. Information can be anything that is communicated from one person to another (and a lot more).

I remember (1)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295807)

A long time ago, computer games were hip and counterculture in a lot of ways. Now they're mainstream, and now big media is controlling that media too.

The internet seems to be the last point of free expression remaining today. How long will that last?

Re:I remember (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297928)

Computer games have been protected since the beginning. And bill gates has been whinging about people copying his overpriced development tools since the beginning. This is the natural order of things

K.K.'s Name (4, Interesting)

10Neon (932006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295916)

"The initials "K.K." themselves are the equivalent of "Inc." or "Corp." in Japan, where Nintendo is based, which suggests that the company may have wryly co-opted the digital age's equivalent of the "Steal This Book" mantra, repackaged it as a puppy and inserted it into a happy video game village. The company did not confirm that this was the genesis of the name, however."
Since "K.K" is short for "Totakeke" It seems more reasonable to assume that he was named after Kazumi Totaka, the game's composer. ...At least, that was the GCN Animal Crossing's composer (K.K. existed there too). I have not played Wild World.

Re:K.K.'s Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14296634)

This is true.

Re:K.K.'s Name (1)

edbarrett (150317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14305297)

No, it's a reference to KK Null [kknull.com] 's black chihuahua [blackchihuahua.jp] . Everybody knows that!

Quick reality check (2, Interesting)

Ahaldra (534852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14295948)

Wait a sec - is Mr. Zeller actually saying, in his own words, that excercising your freedom to market your own artistic works is equal to murder, rape and robbery on the seven seas? And he really publishes in the NY friggin Times?
*blinks*
I wonder if this guy wrote the article with a straight face. And I smell cat pee.

Re:Quick reality check (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14297857)

Piracy is actually any attack on a civil ship or aircraft over international waters. Shooting a 767 with a stinger missile from a canoo ruddered 5 miles away from land is piracy.

Besides, it's a huge conspiracy to cause global cooling, everybody knows that pirates are cool and global temperature is inversely proportional to the number of pirates, making millions of unsuspecting people pirates will freeze the planet down to near absolute zero.

Re:Quick reality check (1)

Ahaldra (534852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14299112)

Dear Sir or Madam,
after reading your post and picking myself up from the floor let me just say: ROFL

The Good Guys (1)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296242)

At least it is becoming more clear who the good guys are in the Sony vs Nintendo vs Microsoft battle. (Hint: Its not Sony or Microsoft).

Vote with your dollars.

oh shit... (1)

HTL2001 (836298) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296264)

I suppose sites like purevolume support music piracy then?

what a load of BS

Not promoting piracy (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296374)

I haven't played the game, but it seems that the dog is talking about giving away his own music. The RIAA hasn't patented "musical composition" yet (that patent belongs to someone else, actually), so I don't see how this is any sort of IP infringement.

Conflicting theory: (2, Interesting)

rohlfinator (888775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296387)

"It's also just good marketing, and K.K. is, after all, the offspring of a huge gaming juggernaut, developed behind layers of boardrooms and P.R. machines and demographic analyses. The initials "K.K." themselves are the equivalent of "Inc." or "Corp." in Japan, where Nintendo is based, which suggests that the company may have wryly co-opted the digital age's equivalent of the "Steal This Book" mantra, repackaged it as a puppy and inserted it into a happy video game village."
From what I understand, the initials K.K. were derived from the Japanese name of the character, Totokeke. It has also been suggested that they were a reference to Koji Kondo, a well-known composer at Nintendo and author of the Mario and Zelda themes. In fact, one of K.K.'s "secret tracks", K.K. Song, is believed to be a song composed by Koji Kondo, which was featured only as a hidden track in a few other games. Nobody even hinted at this corporation theory a few years ago, when the original Animal Crossing was released.

Also, even though K.K. is apparently supporting piracy, there's no in-game way for players to duplicate K.K. Slider's "airchecks" and share them with other players. Nor is there any indication that these "bootlegs" are pirated copies of published work. His songs are, for all intents and purposes, bound to their distribution media. Some people are reading way too much into this. ;P

I wish they would. (2, Funny)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14296806)

Considering the backlash Nintendo's had on the ROM scene, I doubt you could call them supportors of anything illegal, even if they don't lose profit from it.

However, I wish they would make something that inadvertently allowed music piracy. Like allowing voice clips to be sent over NiFi to other users to be saved for other times.

Suppose they made some music game. You could play the piano using the touchpad on the DS. Someone decides to do a bit of the latest Nickelback/Britney Spears/$RIAA_GLAMOR_WHORE song (say, a minute or so,) and sends it to a friend to show off his or her skills. Said friend likes it so much that it is then sent to even more friends. Because the snippet shows the original author, the RIAA is able to track down the person who originally made the snippet.

Not only do they sue the person who made the snippet, but they go after Nintendo for a 'piracy distribution service'. Despite Nintendo's tied-for-second-but-somewhat-third place in the console race in America (and second place in Japan,) they have a rather large pile of cash to lean back on, thanks in part to the success that is Gameboy.

If this happened, I think it would be a turning point. Nintendo has the money and clout to defend themselves against the Princes of the Sixth Circle of Hell, and would do so, even if only to keep from having a black mark on any of their games or systems. Plus, looking at Slashdot as a whole, Nintendo is the "company to love" for video games (where the XBox is made by "M$", and Sony hates our ownership rights,) so the /. crowd, seeing their good steed battle the bad one, would rise up behind Nintendo, causing some sort of internet backwave that would eventually lead to either the downfall of the RIAA or a drastic change in their business model.

Of course, I've been taking some pain medication, and now I may just be fantasizing.

Are they serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14297916)

In related news, it has been revealed that a prominent Nintendo mascot promotes solving ones problems by jumping on peoples' heads and squishing them.

Seriously, is this actually newsworthy?

wait a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14297975)

did this person cite a LIVEJOURNAL for evidence backing his claim?

ugh.

This isn't new (1)

Phantasmo (586700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14300322)

I seem to remember Totakeke (K.K. Slider) talking about this stuff in the Gamecube version, which was released three years ago.
Why wasn't it an issue then?

Conclusion: slow news day. Article = flamebait.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>