I didn't like the movie much at all, but I don't think ANYTHING should be spoiled. How often do we get a Star Wars movie? Good or bad, let the people enjoy it as fresh as possible
@amjohhnnson: Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. The bar and other factors are mentioned to demonstrate money was being made, just in an indirect way.
something is being built that is successful based ENTIRELY on the popularity of Pokemon characters. So successful in fact that it's going on multiple years and it is SOLD OUT.
Why can't he just make up his own characters? Because no one would come.
And it is 3 parties being sued. Not just him.
BARELY copyright? How could you even make such an ignorant statement and conclusion?
Read the court filing and tell me you still disagree. Anyone that can comprehend the actual issues will see it's not 'complete bull****.
Just because you discovered you are on the wrong side of an argument doesn't mean you should tell someone to 'get over it already'. That's kind of the lamest way possible to respond.
@amjohhnnson: you have zero common sense because you totally miss the point: characters under copyright are not for fair and legal use without PERMISSION.
This guy did not have PERMISSION, and he is making money off of these characters. Anyone with common sense would understand that.
You obviously never paid attention to any court cases in trademark/patent or juvenile law.
Not all fees are reimbursed, especially if the person you are suing does NOT have the funds. Long story short, you cannot get blood from a stone. Since you are in law, ever sue someone for litigation damages that can't pay?
For someone preaching common sense, I'm only not sure you know what that means.
@amjohhnnson: that was a small part of my point, with the point being this guy is profiting off of intellectual property that he has zero right to, and likely has been the past 4 years.
i have to think has well made over $4000 during that time and actually i think the monetary damages are pretty lenient.
this guy was able to afford cash and contest prizes along with a bar.
when you were 18, 19, and 20, did you ask mommy and daddy every single place you wanted to go and get permission? it's ok if you were raised like that, but actually once you are over 18 in most states you are considered an adult. thus these kids likely have access to alcohol illegally, and guess what happens when one these poor chaps cause an accident or day say kill someone.
Guess what the newspaper headline will likely say:
"Underage child killed in alcohol related accident from a Pokemon Party"
Again, guess who is getting a phone call from some idiot parent's lawyer.
Here's a clue: it's the one with the most money. The Pokemon Company is getting sued first until they work out some idiot is using their properties name without consent.
And that's costing both parties well over $4000.
This is a LEGAL matter. If The Pokemon Company lets this profiteer use their trademarks without ceasing, it sets a precedent and they may very well lose control and protection of these characters/brand names.
I totally disagree. look at whats involved in this party.
"Posters for the event (see below) featured Pokemon creatures Pikachu and Snivy, while organizers used Pikachu's likeness to market the party on Facebook. In addition, this was not a free party, as tickets for the sold-out event--now in its fifth year--went for $2."
Like I stated above in an earlier comment replay ,he had ""Pokemon-themed shots and drinks," "Smash Bros. Tournament with cash prize," "Dancing," "Giveaways," "Cosplay Contest, and more."
This thing obviously generates enough money for CASH prizes and giveaways, etc.
This is the FIFTH year. He is profiting off the popularity of a brand name.
He could have got away with probably just a general "Cosplay" event or "Video Game Character" event, but he specfically uses Pokemon. Why? Because that will get the most attention.
He's profiting off the popularity someone else built.
He isn't giving away cash prizes and other prizes like charity.
Also, do you think the $2 entry free is the only thing he's doing ot make money.
Those "pokemon" shots and drinks don't come with an open bar I'm pretty sure.
Also, do you really want kids attracted to an event that has adults pounding drinks and shots?
"Posters for the event (see below) featured Pokemon creatures Pikachu and Snivy, while organizers used Pikachu's likeness to market the party on Facebook. In addition, this was not a free party, as tickets for the sold-out event--now in its fifth year--went for $2."
do you have little kid parties marketed on the Internet and charge $2 a ticket and do so for four years?
not only that, he had ""Pokemon-themed shots and drinks," "Smash Bros. Tournament with cash prize," "Dancing," "Giveaways," "Cosplay Contest, and more."
This thing obviously generates enough money for CASH prizes and giveaways, etc.
You are over-simplifying the event and cannot compare the two
What people don't seem to understand is there much money invested into products such as Pokemon.
People seem to think Nintendo just casually invents games and trademarks characters with little thought and they just luckily stumbled into a fortune.
First of all, these are the COMAPNIES properties. Not to do what the public seems fit.
It isn't just Nintendo that protects their properites. Take a little time and do a little research on Walt Disney, Marvel, DC, or any well known brand.
Nintendo has NO CONTROL over the event. They don't know what is going on and doesn't want to risk someone holding them responsible for some fanboys actions.
I'm sure what the fanboy is doing is probably harmless, but what if he's an idiot and decides to include or allow illegal activities on the side?
Or what if there is an incident where someone gets hurt? A fight breaks out or somebody gets injured because some safetly measure wasn't accounted for. Who is the injured person going to try to sue? The fanboy? No. They'll go after who they THINK is responsible for the event and try to sue Nintendo.
I'm not saying Nintendo is going to lose that lawsuit, but it's still going to cost them unnecessary time and money.
If they allow this, then others think they can do other stuff in the companies name, and honestly the brand gets cheapened.
The company invented it, invested a lot of money in it, invested a lot of time. It is theirs and not for just anyone to use it.
$10 is a great price. Just because it's old doesn't mean its worth any less. Look at music and movies: Beatles, The Who, Queen, any classic...the music isn't cheaper because it's older. Its because it's what people are willing to pay.
I'd gladly pay $10 to play something I don't have to worry about a cartridge getting dirty, battery dying, an inferior hookup to a TV, etc.
flazzle's comments