You're confusing copyright with trademark. Nintendo can continue to use Mario as their exclusive mark and still relinquish the copyright to it. As long as you don't use the trademark to mislead people to think it was made by Nintendo, then you can make as many Mario games and Mario remakes as you like.
As far as this project is concerned, I see it as an attempt to preserve a piece of culture and protect it from being lost to time and age.
No, it shouldn't. Miyamoto himself admitted that everything in Mario Bros. was based on Alice In Wonderland (i.e. eat mushrooms to get big, rabbit hole to another world/pipe to another world, etc.). So how does Mario get to be Nintendo's IP, when they built it from another work so heavily? You can't keep drawing from the public well and fail to replenish it. It will eventually run dry. So as with "IP" belonging solely to the creator for all time, they are taking from free and shared resources, but never replenishing them in kind. Content owners are all about taking what they can get away with and then forming business and political alliances so they can stop anyone else from doing the same to them. They're all about a double standard. They think they can take all they want and exploit it, but point fingers and scream "theft" when others do the same damn thing.
No, they didn't have it coming. They should have been able to do this without Nintendo's blessing. Nintendo had their chance to profit from this game and they did, massively. They don't need to anymore; they don't deserve it. This goes against everything copyright was supposed to promote. The point is to encourage the constant creation of new works, not to shit one golden egg and sit on it indefinitely.
Copyright, if it must exist, shouldn't last any longer than it takes to develop and market a new creative work. Such an example would be that if the peak market cycle of a movie is 5-7 years, hypothetically, the copyright should only last 5-7 years. This puts positive pressure on authors and artists to keep creating in order to stay ahead of the expiration of copyrights so they always have exclusive works they can profit from. This, I think, is more "balanced" than what we keep hearing about how to "balance" copyright from the talking heads' perspective.
Better take away those crayons!!! They could be used as a potential weapon! Just wait, some child will over sharpen their crayon to too fine of a point and someone will feel threatened by it. Without thinking, someone will call it a weapon and the whole thing starts over again. Anything can be a weapon if you put your mind to it. Which begs the question: who is smarter? Is it the child that figured out how to make a "weapon" from a crayon or the person that called it a "weapon"?
I second that! There is a massive deficit of critical thinking and rational response in this country. Zero tolerance means zero thinking. It's the perfect storm for people that are boiling over with paranoia and ignorance to destroy young minds. Just to make it clear, I'm saying that the vast majority of people have abandoned their capacity to make their own judgments. Our society is getting lazy. They don't want to take responsibility for their own children, they want it done for them. They don't want to think, they want someone to think for them. They don't want to decide how to live, they want to be told how to live. People are heading down a slippery slope that leads to mindless cattle just being herded around and controlled. No thinking; no questions; just blind obedience.
You know what? That's not the web's problem! That's the content industry's problem. They should fix their own problems internally instead of meddling in our infrastructure to make it align with their desires. Anybody who thinks that any of this is going to solve existing problems is blind. This will only add to the problem and it won't lead to one more dime of profit for anybody.
They should just admit the truth we already know...
The NSA isn't hunting terrorists, they're hunting dissent among the citizenry. They are tapping us all so they can watch for people organizing a revolt against the people in power. This smacks of an attempt to keep the serfs under watch so they don't come to their senses and toss their lords out on their asses. Capitalism and representative republic is just a revised version of feudalism that creates an illusion of upward mobility so that people are too busy chasing a rags to riches fantasy to notice how they're being used.
You're making the assumption that the means of production will remain in the hands of the capital-owning class. It won't. If 3D printing keeps progressing, people will have their own means of production completely independent of the class of owners. This vast wealth that's coming is already here, we just don't use it very well. The distribution might well be taken care of if resources can be properly allocated, because the means of production will be highly distributed already.
The doomsday scenario will only happen if the capitalists insist on holding on to the means to production in spite of it being pointless to do so. The capitalists won't need workers, so they don't need money to keep their operation going. So what we need is a system to allocate resources that doesn't rely on currency. If we are approaching an age of abundance, then we'll need something to make sure that we distribute those resources efficiently. I don't know what that might look like, but I hope I get to see it.
Of course they're betting on rebellion. What else will people do if the elites don't step down and relinquish control of the means of production? Militarizing the police is a foolish plan. There are more of us than there are of them and the police are people no different than us, they wouldn't be fighting the people when they're just as badly off. No, if they expect rebellion and they won't back down, they're likely planning something to take that threat out before it happens. Some sort of class cleansing.
The only real reason anything basic is scarce is because it's locked behind a pay wall. These capitalists are still stuck on the idea that if I get something from them, I need to give something to them in return. You don't need to re-compensate for something that was trivial to produce and isn't rivalrous to them.
I think you make a good point. At some time in the future (not all that far), jobs will not be necessary. People won't have to trade their labor to satisfy basic human needs because human labor is not needed. There will still be some particular industries that will always exist (e.g. science, art, and technology), but they will not be a commercial entity. If people work, they will do so because the work itself matters to them, not because they are seeking a paycheck, they don't need one.
Capitalism thrives on one important property: scarcity. Eliminate or drastically reducing scarcity through automation and abundance-creating technology (aluminum used to be more scarce than platinum) will undercut capitalism's core mechanism: allocating scarce resources. The biggest problem with capitalism is scarcity, because instead of trying to use resources efficiently, people leverage it to acquire more and deprive others from satisfying their basic needs. We actually have an inefficient allocation of resources because of capitalism.
So, I see the dwindling supply of jobs as progress, not as a problem to be dealt with. The real problem is making sure the people at the bottom don't suffer for it, but making more jobs is not the solution. Aligning technology to provide for people without the expectation of monetary exchange is the solution. We need technological solutions, not more political pandering about "job creators". That term has been falsely distorted to be synonymous with satisfying basic needs.
The advantages of needing less labor. What about the massive gains of having automated industries? Stuff that took human labor to do is done my machines and people have more free time for other things. They also do it better than human labor. Automation means people have to do less work and get more out of it. At some point, "job" will become synonymous with "hobby" because full automation of all industries means that nobody has to work for what they need and everything will become abundant. Every technology we apply creates more of what we had before. Look at agriculture. 1,000 years ago, how hard was it to feed large populations? Now, the only barrier is money. We produce more than enough food to feed every human on the planet. It's a senseless tragedy that anybody starves to death today.
I think this term has been bandied about and abused to justify far too many abuses of the citizenry and not just in the US nor in the present. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's not the government's business to provide "national security" because they are both inept at the task and do so at the great neglect of upholding the constitution. Clearly, national security and upholding the constitution are conflicting interests. They should utilize what has been provided in the constitution to leave national security to the people as it was reserved for them to secure. We are in a state of lies, secrets, and spies that threaten all out conflict with other nations and peoples. Our hubris that we can police the world, spy on them, and keep secrets from them all is exactly what has made us a target to anyone that doesn't like what we do.
For the sake of us all, I plead to all that is rational that we give up the military imperialism, the secrets, the lies, and the spying.
They're corporations. As corporations, they thrive on externalization. That's why they don't go after infringement directly (i.e. the uploader), it would cost them too much and gain them too little when it would be easier and cheaper to make blameless neutral parties bear the liability. So they blame file hosts, torrents, registrars, and so on. Nuking it from orbit is easier than precision strikes and if they can get others to do the work for them, even bear the cost, all the better. They think they're special because they have money; they think it makes them more important than everyone else and everyone should bow to their whims because they externalize everything they can. Laws are for them to push costs and liabilities on others so they don't have to bear it.
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
How many times are you going to post erroneous and ignorant diatribe? How many times do people have to point out the glaring factual and logical failure of your narrow way of thinking? When will you realize that everything you say is only correct to you because you demonstrably NEVER question your own dogmatic belief in your own willfully ignorant interpretation of the law and its purpose? You are one person insisting that you are the paragon of virtue and the purveyor of superior cognition, blindly pretending to have the moral high ground, against a sea of people that have reasoned, demonstrated, and proven that you are not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. I've seen old strings of lights that are less twisted than your logic. You're like an old man yelling at a cloud. You look like a fool, yet you continue your vitriolic diatribe oblivious to your utter lack of credibility. No one believes you, no one respects you, and we're sick of explaining to you why you are so often full of hogwash. You don't contribute to the discussion, you just spew your contempt for the site, its founder, and the people that visit regularly. If this were any other community, you would have been banned a long time ago. Show some appreciation that Mike supports your right to express your opinions. Realize, he allows you to continue to insult him. He has the capacity to ensure you can never harass him or his audience. Be grateful, because he's being very generous.
Personally, I'd prefer this site required registration so that an ignore button can be implemented, but I'll just have to be happy with the report button. Show a little decorum. You've been granted a lot of slack and you behave like an ungrateful prick.
Since we can access such content in other ways, we have every right to complain. EULA's and TOS tomes are no excuse to screw every paying customer over with legal semantics and abusive business practices. If they don't want to reward people for paying, then people will get it without paying. The question is, "Do they want that money or not?"