Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I'm ignorant on this stuff.

A gamer buys a game. He makes video of himself playing the game and making commentary. He is essentially using his own ability in combination with the product he purchased to make money.

A baseball player buys a bat. He uses that bat in combination with his own ability to play baseball and make money.

Why is there a difference between intellectual property and actual property? I'm not saying one way is better than the other, just trying to understand. I'll hang up and listen.

This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 3:56 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by FourThreeForty

Member since May 2013

17290 posts

Posted on 2/6/15 at 4:21 pm to BottomlandBrew

Intellectual property is that the source of the material is and belongs to Nintendo. In other words, Nintendo coined/created/thought of it themselves. It is basically what it sounds like. A thought or creation from the mind of one or many persons.

When intellectual property is made and or distributed, whether it be a game, music, etc., it can't be touched as far as use by an outside entity unless given permission and ultimately finalized by said source.

Idk if that answered your question, but there is a bylaw that exists when using such material that allows you, in most cases, to bypass these restrictions and use it for entertainment purposes as long as it is non profit and fan-based. Or otherwise a parody. People in the past have used the loophole of "parody" to make different videos, movies, games and such as they please. It's a bit complicated but not all that hard to get past if you just know what to say and how to go about it.

I believe it is called the Fair Use Act? Correct me if I am wrong. Looks like I just had a halfway incorrect rant of something I really don't know all that much about