that's why Nintendo hasn't released an Earthbound title in the U.S. since the first one. They were like "damn, everybody is in love with this game and it sold millions, we should save this for when we are in panic mode." It's not because the game wasn't popular enough to release a new one. What? You think some cold-hearted business team runs Nintendo? Games industry runs on emotions and honor.
edit: oh wow, it's not even a new game, just the VC release...
Given the legal minefield the game presents, it's pretty miraculous they're getting it up on the VC. And of course it's not a new one. Itoi said it's done. Given they're basically manifestations of his personal experiences, that's that.
this stuff?
http://earthboundcentral.com/2009/02/earthbound-legal-issues/that's just nintendo being super conservative. even the stuff that author thinks is too similar (the changeling, tequila, welcome to the machine, Lucy in the sky reprise) is very debatable (i say this as a ex-musician and law student who has taken a music licensing law class.) The author doesn't seem to know what a sample is vs a musical reference/quote. The author also doesn't know the law behind this at all, so I'm not sure why he's writing like these are actual legal issues that will end up in lawsuits and that there's no other way to handle them. If he did know the law, this article would be about the cost of sampling and clearance and it wouldn't be that sympathetic to Nintendo. Pretty much stopped believing in his credibility at the phrase "our lawsuit happy society"
This is just a fan boy article and here's why.
It's not a minefield. Worst case scenario, they'd need some clearance for these tracks. But corporate lawyers are scared of everything, so they probably told Nintendo they'd need licensing clearance on a bunch of it. If Nintendo decided that that was too expensive, then the game is indeed not all that popular because licensing is negotiable and also usually priced to allow you to still sell your product and be profitable, or else nobody would license anything, ever. Music licensing is a business too, which the author doesn't know, which is why he's taking pity on poor, little Nintendo. Nintendo just didn't want to pay because they didn't think it was worth it...assuming this stuff is even direct enough to require it. Small time musicians pay licensing fees, why couldn't big time Nintendo do it for a digital release of a game? b/c they're cheap as fuck and don't feel Earthbound is popular enough to warrant it. More on point, average movies pay licensing fees on multiple tracks for the full songs and are still commercially viable. Sample clearance would not even be as pricy as that.
and that is closer to the truth than worries about being sued. The only reason they'd worry about being sued is if they didn't intend to get clearance.
