molotov

I was responding to the statement found currently on Nintendo’s website, the question Nintendo states, “But can’t I make a backup copy if I own the video game?” which you posted.

Nintendo makes the claim that making an archival copy of a physical game you own is not legal because video games do not fall under computer software,

“There is some misinformation on the Internet regarding this backup/archival exception. This is a very narrow limitation that extends to computer software.”

According to the court case I referenced, it in fact does just that. This court case clearly spells out that video games do fall under computer software and that they are subject to all of legal rights that go with it, your right to archive your physical copy of your game just like any other computer software, but this does not extend to making “backups” which Nintendo uses interchangeably with the term archive.

In legal terms backups are intended for short term storage and readily usable. An archive is intended with the purpose of long term storage and preservation of the software. Nintendo conflates the two and claims both are illegal, this is the problem. Not the subject of the court case mentioned, the court case I referenced is only to reinforce that the court recognized that video games fall under computer software and that § 117 of The Copyright Act of 1980 do give you that right. Here is a link to that section of the law.

But can’t I make a backup copy if I own the video game? You may be thinking of the backup/archival exception under the U.S. Copyright Act. There is some misinformation on the Internet regarding this backup/archival exception. This is a very narrow limitation that extends to computer software. Video games are comprised of numerous types of copyrighted works and should not be categorized as software only. Therefore, provisions that pertain to backup copies would not apply to copyrighted video game works and specifically ROM downloads, that are typically unauthorized and infringing.

This statement is misleading and a lie. Computer software encompass video games as part of the legal definition outlined in Galoob v. Nintendo in 1992, which Nintendo lost in court. They do not have a legal leg to stand on. If someone wants to make an archival copy of a game they own physically, they can legally. The terms backup and archival are not interchangeable from a legal stance and Nintendo intentionally uses misleading language when answering the question.

Godot banned developers/financial backers on twitter and GitHub.

Creator of Godot engine, Head of development and Godot Foundation Board Member, Juan Linietsky is on record as saying,

"I deeply believe that any political discussion that puts labels to a group of people is one that not have started. As most of the people in this planet, no matter their political compass, seems to strongly disagree with me, I just prefer to stay entirely out of politics."

The Godot Foundation responded to the bans with this statement,

"On Friday, we made a tweet that unexpectedly led to a wave of harassment directed at our staff and community. We unequivocally condemn this abuse. The volume of negative engagement overwhelmed our moderation efforts. While attempting to protect the Godot community we mistakenly blocked individuals who were not participating in the harassment. The Godot Foundation Board takes full responsibility for these moderation actions.

If you believe you were blocked in error and have not violated our Code of Conduct, please contact us with the form linked below. We are committed swiftly rectifying any mistakes.

We firmly stand by our mission to keep our community spaces free from hate, discrimination, and other toxic behaviors." -The Godot Foundation Board

After this statement from Godot was released Juan Linietsky posted this on Mastodon,

"Will chill from Twitter/X until after the US elections. Almost all the hate Godot got over the weekend was pretty much people who had not a clue what a game engine is, what Godot is, or what a FOSS / Community made project is. Most of the ones who did were the usual haters.

Checking profile of haters, majority pro-trump people with weird religious symbology, or people with avatars/obsession for anime little girls.

Sometimes I feel I am too innocent for this world."

My own anecdotal evidence, walking several blocks and crossing a busy intersection everyday.

I take attempts to not get hit by looking at the driver and checking to see if they are paying attention. Often a driver will inch forward until they can time turning between cars coming from the opposite side of the intersection or will turn immediately when the light changes. I often have people who wait, but mostly people will just drive past me while I stand waiting to cross.

Car size doesn't seem to make any difference in how aware the driver is or if they are following driver safety, at least when I'm attempting to keep myself from being hit.