so we should not be equal in the eye of the law?

That sounds more like an assumption based on morals. I can't answer that, I don't know. Depends on who you are asking.

The point is that I think copyright laws (among other things) are changed or exploited in favour of large organizations because they can. Do you at least understand that as a concept?

Yes, but to do something like that you need to be unfair to a party in some way. You can not have it both ways - i.e. having fair and equal laws for all and making concessions for being larger or smaller company sizes.

I did not imply that perfect balance is possible, merely that some changes are needed. Besides, the "fair and equal laws" may work on paper and in people's minds but I doubt that really flies in practice.

No, but is it not an the ideal to strive towards? (I do not have the answer here, it is a personal thingy)

I have no problems with unbalanced laws, but I wonder who many actually consider the consequences when they make statements such as you did? It will end in a moral dilemma, yes - it sounds easy to start with, but it will end with consequences where you give people allowance to break/bend the law, depending on social or economic status

Imagine the dull and repetitive grind made into a franchise with a cast of 721 quirky and colorful characters.
When you are the holder of a billion dollar franchise, what the hell do you need the money for?

Right, you can set fire to the pokemon cards or sell them or whatever. That's all fine because you're not infringing their copyright. Copyright grants them exclusive rights to make pokemon related things. There's a difference between hosting a pokemon themed party in your house and hosting a pokemon themed party in your business and charging for tickets.

I agree that we're in need of copyright reform though, it should only last for 20 years or so IMO.

EDIT: Phew, was trying to post this last night but the forum kept eating it.

their lawyer friends need to eat. and protecting the image of the brand or something.
im disgusted that you even associate pokemon fans with FPS-only mouth-breathing "it's gay so it's funny" brofisters. bad comparision. you should be ashamed.

Alright, put it this way: He was passing his café off as Pokémon merchandise. He had been doing this for years too.

And yes, blank wall themed would be fine. As would characters of his own design, something public domain or even something he'd licensed. This isn't some kid printing out a Pokémon birthday card they made in publisher and then having a SWAT team bust down the door, this is an adult repeatedly using copyrighted characters to advertise his business and to attract people to an event for which he charged money. He's an idiot.

Are they being heavy handed? It certainly sounds like it. Are they wrong to stop him? Not at all, it just should have been a cease and desist. For all we know, he got one and ignored it.

I have to scratch my head and ask: So?

Let's change the situation. Let's assume someone who's a fan of Disney, goes to Disney's theme park and buys tons of stuff ends up opening a cafe or something, and they decide 'i'll just decorate with the toys and stuff i got over the years!' this includes posters, stuffed animals, hats, etc. Now just for fun since they found a lot of interesting pies cakes and other stuff in the disney movies, they decide to make their own versions of those so people can order them. They optionally allow waitresses to cosplay if they want as any disney character they want (assuming it's not impractical and can still serve tea and cake, etc). Hell they probably even have Fantasia in the background for music if they want.

The cafe will be making money, and they will be using copyrighted materials to advertise their own shop. But none of the stuff that makes the theme is being sold, it's just on display to make the theme, something to make it stand out as different, not because the cafe couldn't stand alone as a normal cafe. Sorta like having a tiny park in the middle of a city, it's just a little break from the norm.

I have to ask what the problem is? Yeah i know disney might make a bit fit of it, or they might send someone to make sure their company name isn't being disgraced and if it is either make suggestions or demand a fee to use the theme (and even let them name the cafe with the disney name) for part of it. But assuming the name Disney isn't used at all and everything just happens to be related to disney, i really don't see the issue...

I'll say though, i know i'm naive and completely ignorant of whatever trademark laws are present, although a number of them are stupid and need an overhaul (if the copyright system is anything to go by).

Do you mean 20 years after the creator's death, or 20 years total? Currently it lasts for 70 years after the creator's death. Personally, I think copyright should last until the creator's death and then end there.

Heh. I do like his masks and disguises, though I think that sometimes he does kind of take it a little too far. You do raise a good point though about the Western branches of Japanese developers though; it reminds me of the conflict between Sega of America and Sega of Japan.

I'm associating rabid fans with the state of being uncritically devoted to a company or IP (and it can of course be any company or IP), regardless of how horrible their business practices my be.

Personally, I morally wouldn't have any problem with it. But from what I gather both Disney and Nintendo are zealously protective of their brands and IP, to the point where it's not so much someone making money by piggybacking on the brand that is the problem, but it's them having their control of their brand threatened (either directly or indirectly). One could even say that their brand identities are even more valuable to them than the products they actually sell.

In the case of your example above, Disney wouldn't have any problem with a Disney-themed cafe if it were hosted on a Disney property, run by wholly Disney-selected and trained personnel, used exclusively Disney-provided supplies, and headed up by someone trained in Disney-specific corporate practices. But from their perspective an independently owned cafe run by someone who calls themselves a fan, using the Disney brand in a manner outside of Disney's control would be unacceptable. Disney's so big that it likely wouldn't care about any potential lost revenue.

I meant 20 years total. The original point of copyright was to give the author an exclusive right to reproduce their work for a limited time so they had a possibility of making a living from it. That in turn would allow them to continue to produce new works (as well as giving them an incentive to produce new works).
20 years is plenty for the original purpose
Again, advertising it as a Pokemon or Disney party and charging money is the stupid bit and is what attracts the 'eye of sauron'.