The morality of piracy

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

Nintendo now legally owns “summon and fight” in the U.S. What does that mean for Palworld… and your favorite games?

The patent arms race is heating up, and Nintendo’s latest move could reshape how studios design games.

www.windowscentral.com

The Patent '397 covers the fundamental mechanics of summoning a character to have it fight another. So yes, sounds like Pokmon. However, it also describes things that many other games do.

Unlike many patents, which often face heavy scrutiny or rejections before theyre approved, this one glided through the U.S. Patent Office without objections. It was filed in March 2023 and granted just last week.

Patent '397 is potentially explosive for the gaming industry, because it isn't just about Palworld. If a game does all of the following, it could be challenged.

• There must be a PC, console or other computing device and the game is stored on a drive or similar storage medium.
• You can move your main character in a virtual space.
• You can summon a secondary character (called the sub character in the patent).
• If theres an enemy present, the summoned character fights it (either automatically or based on your input.)
• If there isnt, the summoned character can still move and fight when it encounters an enemy later.

If a game does those things, Nintendo now has a patent that could be used to argue infringement. I'm sure you can think of 100s of games that do this. This isnt just a Pokmon thing. The patent language is so broad that it could arguably apply to mechanics across RPGs, action games, MMOs, and the list goes on.

Take Diablo 4, where the Necromancer class is built around summoning skeletons, golems, and other minions that fight automatically or under your direction. In World of Warcraft, warlocks summon demons, hunters summon pets. In Elden Ring, if youre not one of those solo purists, you might summon your Mimic Tear to help in battle (or, in my case, just finish the battle for me). The list is endless.

In other words, if youve played games at all in the last 20 years, youve seen this mechanic everywhere. And now, at least in the U.S., Nintendo has a patent claim that could theoretically be pointed at any of them.

This is a perfect example of BS intellectual property law being abused.

 

[TruckDriver9]

I hear your many examples of how the technofeudalists want to move you to a subscription-based model. This is all true. But I don't know how this then makes your piracy-based model ethical.

What about a situation when a streaming company changes it's offer after You subscribed to it?
Like the situation described in the TV show thread:

Post in thread 'The TV Shows Thread'

Dec 12, 2025

Yesterday, I opened Netflix to continue watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. But guess what—all of the Star Trek series on Netflix now have the “Leaving Soon” notification. Yes, all of them: The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, and even The Animated Series. They are all scheduled to leave on 8 January 2026.

I’ve only reached The Next Generation Season 7, Episode 18. While I will be able to finish TNG before it leaves, I haven’t watched the other series yet. Just when I...​

• Seng Hock

• 
• 

Isn't a company withdrawing movies and series that were available at the time of subscription stealing from You?
And wouldn't pirating those films/shows now, count as getting what one already paid for?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Isn't a company withdrawing movies and series that were available at the time of subscription stealing from You?
And wouldn't pirating those films/shows now, count as getting what one already paid for?

None of the streaming services are built off of any one movie or show in particular. It's baked into their service model that they will rotate their selection, which you acknowledge when you sign up for their service. They are not lying, cheating, or stealing from you by rotating their selection. If you are signing up for one show or movie in particular, then I strongly recommend buying the hard copy instead of signing up, and if that isn't available, rent or buy a digital copy on a service that provides it.

 

[TruckDriver9]

If you are signing up for one show or movie in particular, then I strongly recommend buying the hard copy instead of signing up, and if that isn't available, rent or buy a digital copy on a service that provides it.

Well, the situation doesn't affect me personally in any way (and it's one of reasons why I prefer hard copies), it just reminded me of this thread.

None of the streaming services are built off of any one movie or show in particular. It's baked into their service model that they will rotate their selection, which you acknowledge when you sign up for their service. They are not lying, cheating, or stealing from you by rotating their selection.

I'll have to disagree with You. Limiting the offer halfway through the subscription period seems like cheating to me. After all someone could have signed up only because of these particular media, and now he's denied something he already paid for.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'll have to disagree with You. Limiting the offer halfway through the subscription period seems like cheating to me. After all someone could have signed up only because of these particular media, and now he's denied something he already paid for.

What do you mean by "limiting the offer halfway through the subscription period"? Most of these streaming services rotate (not limit) their selection on a monthly basis, the same frequency that they will charge you to use the service (meaning you can cancel if you don't like what's new). It's not like you sign up for a year and then they suddenly remove all their catalogue a month or even six months into the subscription and you're stuck paying for something you don't like.

 

[TruckDriver9]

What do you mean by "limiting the offer halfway through the subscription period"? Most of these streaming services rotate (not limit) their selection on a monthly basis, the same frequency that they will charge you to use the service (meaning you can cancel if you don't like what's new). It's not like you sign up for a year and then they suddenly remove all their catalogue a month or even six months into the subscription and you're stuck paying for something you don't like.

Yeah, I don't use these these services much, and it looks like I made an error. Thought they had longer subscription periods. My bad.

Edit. Checked, used to have an annual subscription with another service in the past, that's what confused me - assumed they're all the same.
Caveman status confirmed.

 

[Blade Runner]

Contrary to what Blade Runner says, actions are indeed moral and immoral in themselves.

No, the problem with your approach (as a critique, and it applies to other thinking of yours that is incorrect) is that you want so badly for there to be black and white always, but there is not. That's why you like mental assent salvation and other simpleton aspects of theology. It's also why muslims like to argue against the Holy Trinity as making partners with god (shirk). The trinity doesn't make sense "rationally" - it is revelation. It does make sense theologically, however, and it can be explained in an interesting way of oneness and unity, but the idea is complex (essence, personhood).

Quickly, my first answer was going to be a good one too, in response: Actions can be moral and immoral in themselves. The fact of life is that not all actions fall into that category. This should be evident, and is, by all peoples' lived experience.

In Luke 23:34, the Jews do not know that they are crucifying the Christ. In their minds, they are crucifying a guilty criminal. They don't know He is the Christ.

This is dangerous, as is obvious. Ironically, you're using a situational ethic here. Ignorance is a defense? For how long? Should we blame God because He didn't make it clear enough for them that his son would be the Messiah? This is actually funny in exposing the problems with your approach.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is dangerous, as is obvious. Ironically, you're using a situational ethic here. Ignorance is a defense? For how long? Should we blame God because He didn't make it clear enough for them that his son would be the Messiah? This is actually funny in exposing the problems with your approach.

I never stated in my original post that the Jews were innocent for crucifying Jesus. They are guilty as hell. I was answering someone else's question that isn't related at all to our conversation.

No, the problem with your approach (as a critique, and it applies to other thinking of yours that is incorrect) is that you want so badly for there to be black and white always, but there is not. That's why you like mental assent salvation and other simpleton aspects of theology. It's also why muslims like to argue against the Holy Trinity as making partners with god (shirk). The trinity doesn't make sense "rationally" - it is revelation. It does make sense theologically, however, and it can be explained in an interesting way of oneness and unity, but the idea is complex (essence, personhood).

Again, I don't believe in "mental assent" salvation. Maybe that's what faith means in your tradition, but don't project your definition onto me. This is all off topic.

 

[Blade Runner]

I never stated in my original post that the Jews were innocent for crucifying Jesus. They are guilty as hell. I was answering someone else's question that isn't related at all to our conversation.


Again, I don't believe in "mental assent" salvation. Maybe that's what faith means in your tradition, but don't project your definition onto me. This is all off topic.

Getting back to the topic, it's curious that the world is so fallen in the economic and monetary sense at this point it's beyond even just "gray" which is obvious.

We have pure usury and monetary systems that basically treat us like slaves and the masters actually just laugh while others do the labor. It's beyond bizarre to me for others to not just recognize this and admit it, but that's how effective the propaganda is (and why only 1% see BTC for what it is). People are indeed sheep and if they ever get a "taste of the good life" they think that the system they live in is normal. Of course, the elites are more than happy to give you some good feels and even give you freely printed money, since it's nothing to them (power is). Especially when they are compounding it by stealing more and more through law and subscription, as is our point in this thread. Remember, "you will own nothing and be happy about it", @GodfatherPartTwo

Of course I could be wrong about this but imagine being given a "life review" or being judged when you die and someone brings up the "Napster" song you "stole" lol, what the F ever

My feeling overall on this topic is that once the scammers create a tech culture of scaling and governmental intrustion and lobbying to scam consumers further, the consumer then uses the same tech to "not get scammed" and I don't find it to even fall into some "morality" category that's even meaningful. Those corporations are faceless people who can't get sued; there is no personal relationship. The debasement in modernity is coming from THEM, not a reaction from the citizen/person. Let's be real here.