PC EULA changes and mod drama.

[minisith]

Not really relevant.  That does not change the way ownership works.  Only in the example of digital media do your ownership rights get removed when you purchase a product. 

Not that some of these MODS do not have teams larger than TFP anyway.  There are quite a few people involved in the Skyrim Requiem and that product is easily worth more than the base game to me.  

That is for the customer of the after market product to decide.  It has nothing to do with the originating company.  And no, they would not need to charge enough to make a living from it... what would make you say something like that?  All of these people have jobs and this is just a passion.  It would sure be nice if the best ones were able to make a living though - you would see a massive increase in the quality of such mods as the people would have the time as well as the obligation that comes with having customers.

Then they do not have to change.  I don't understand your point here.  No one has to charge for anything.  The point is that the option to charge for hard work, the exact same type of work the creators of the original product have done, has been removed for no reason whatsoever.  I still do not see a single reason other than you stating that they do not have large operations.  A point that is rather irrelevant, it is not as though TFP themselves are a large operation or that there are not single game developers out there.  Rise to Ruin has one single developer.  That has changed nothing in how that game was monetized or the rights that individuals have.  That extends to physical product as well, there are people that create their own products without employees.  Does not mean others cannot make additions to them and sell those as well.

So you think you can modify any film and resell it as your own.  Good luck buddy.

 

[theFlu]

So you think you can modify any film and resell it as your own.  Good luck buddy.

You can, it's called fair use. As long as you don't compete with the original audience, you're fine in the current law.

And why couldn't you? The stated purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new art, if copyright is blocking you from creating your spiderman-edit, it's going against its own purpose.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@FA_Q2 We are talking 7 days here. Skyrim doesn´t matter at all in this topic.

And yes they would need more time. Most people aren´t complaining about bugs, performance issues or any bugs regarding mods right now. This will change when they have to pay for it. And this will take time.

Also a lot of mod authors right out refuse to troubleshoot any MP problems due to a lack of time to do so, so yes, time is also an issue.

I do really appreciate what the modding community does and i play a lot of mods, but a lot of them are pretty janky and pretty much every overhaul has a good amount of bugs happening.

People will change if they are customers. If you think otherwise, you still have faith in humanity and never worked in sales or any kind of service job.  And we are in early access, a lot of people would never know any other way than paying for mods if this would become a thing now.

@theFlu Huh? You mean you could make your own spiderman movie with the actual spiderman in it as long as you target a different audience? I am pretty sure that´s not how this works. I mean there is a reason that "Winnie Pooh - Blood and Honey", came out after Disney lost the rights to the figure and not before even tough they surely don´t aim it at the same target audience as Disney.

 

[theFlu]

Huh? You mean you could make your own spiderman movie with the actual spiderman in it as long as you target a different audience?

Now, don't go getting into lawsuits against billion dollar companies based on the word of an internet randomer; you ain't got the money to see it through. But to an extent, yes. I've seen a copyright case where someone lifted an entire youtube video, slapped it on their own channel with merely a changed title, basically just making fun of the original. The originator went into court over it and got not only thrown out, but to pay the legal fees of the alleged infringer; which is kinda on the rare side for anything copyright related.

So yes, in principle. In practice, go against Disney and they burn so much money with legal bull@%$# that you'll be selling your grandma on a wet market before you see the inside of a courthouse. Hence, Blood and Honey.

And for some reason, characters do seem to get their own protection, yes (which I find rather questionable), so copying the character of spiderman might be legally problematic. But with sufficient changes, you actually Should be allowed to sell your version of No Way Home as you see fit. Under the law, just not in practice.

 

[meganoth]

Now, don't go getting into lawsuits against billion dollar companies based on the word of an internet randomer; you ain't got the money to see it through. But to an extent, yes. I've seen a copyright case where someone lifted an entire youtube video, slapped it on their own channel with merely a changed title, basically just making fun of the original. The originator went into court over it and got not only thrown out, but to pay the legal fees of the alleged infringer; which is kinda on the rare side for anything copyright related.

So yes, in principle. In practice, go against Disney and they burn so much money with legal bull@%$# that you'll be selling your grandma on a wet market before you see the inside of a courthouse. Hence, Blood and Honey.

And for some reason, characters do seem to get their own protection, yes (which I find rather questionable), so copying the character of spiderman might be legally problematic. But with sufficient changes, you actually Should be allowed to sell your version of No Way Home as you see fit. Under the law, just not in practice.

What your are bringing up here is one of several "fair use" excemptions in copyright law, the one about parody. But simply changing the target audience does not suffice. Wikipedia: "Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."

Also how much of the original work is used is a big factor in deciding whether it is fair use. So using a small piece of a work is easier to be considered fair use as the whole work.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use )

 

[theFlu]

What your are bringing up here is one of a few excemptions in copyright law, the one about parody. But simply changing the target audience does not suffice.

Yes, but I basically brought up two, parody has its own clause; but my original phrasing above Papa's quote was "as long as you don't compete with the original audience". I don't know how you would "just change the audience", you do need to change the nature of the work; but I was referring to the non-compete clause there.

In legal practicality, none of the tests used to check for fair use are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions to meet the criteria, in the end it's all left to the discretion of the judge. Non-compete alone Can suffice, but I wouldn't bet my grandma on it.

 

[meganoth]

Yes, but I basically brought up two, parody has its own clause; but my original phrasing above Papa's quote was "as long as you don't compete with the original audience". I don't know how you would "just change the audience", you do need to change the nature of the work; but I was referring to the non-compete clause there.

In legal practicality, none of the tests used to check for fair use are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions to meet the criteria, in the end it's all left to the discretion of the judge. Non-compete alone Can suffice, but I wouldn't bet my grandma on it.

Isn't "not competing with the original audience" the same as "changing the audience" ? EDIT: Ah, I see I probably should have written **target** audience

 

[theFlu]

Isn't "not competing with the original audience" the same as "changing the audience" ?

No. There's plenty a nuance between the two. You can't even choose the audience, you can have a Target Audience, but that's just a target.

But mainly, first one has two solutions; "Don't compete" and "have a different audience". For the latter, only one of those applies.

 

[Jihh]

While I'm on the side of "if TFP says you can't money with mods, then you can't", simply because they have legally (at least in many countries) the upper hand and it's industry standard anyway (so it's not like they are THE evil company we should take down), I feel like most arguments on why after market products in that market have different laws than in many other markets aren't really convincing so far. But I also don't think we need to provide good arguments. If the law gives them the upper hand in that market than that's how it is, plain and simple. Of course you don't have to like it and you can campaign against it, boycott companies which use those laws, tell developers your opinion and so on and maybe in the long term it will change. But until then they still have the upper hand and can just issue a DMCA takedown, wether you like it or not.

I guess my point is: If you keep coming up with unconvincing and irrelevant arguments (like the number of employees), you just make the argument of the other side look strong, even though they are as irrelevant, because differences between different industries can be adjusted in one or the other direction.

 

[Rotor]

Now, don't go getting into lawsuits against billion dollar companies based on the word of an internet randomer; you ain't got the money to see it through.

Twice in one topic my dreams have been derailed.

I am going to have to buy a gaming laptop so I can stay away from you guys while travelling.

 

[Riamus]

You can, it's called fair use. As long as you don't compete with the original audience, you're fine in the current law.

And why couldn't you? The stated purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new art, if copyright is blocking you from creating your spiderman-edit, it's going against its own purpose.

I think this is a grossly over-simplified statement that would not hold up in court except in very clearly specific situations.  You would really need a lawyer to make sure you were completely within the law if trying this as it isn't just a matter of saying it's a different audience or that there isn't any overlap in audience whatsoever.  It's very complicated.  Also, IPs are very well-protected.  Using Spiderman to make money without permission would be extremely difficult to do without losing in court.

It is not a good idea to suggest to people that they can do whatever they want with copyrighted material and get away with it.  There are exceptions to the law and if they follow those exceptions exactly, they can do what they want.  But doing so and staying within the legal exceptions is not something most people are going to be able to do without at least having a lawyer familiar with copyright law to guide them.  It isn't a simple thing to get around copyright laws legally.  It's better to just state that there are ways to bypass copyright law, such as through parody, but that you the copyright holder normally will win in any copyright case.  Otherwise, you're just telling people they can get away with something that will just land them in hot water.

 

[FA_Q2]

So you think you can modify any film and resell it as your own.  Good luck buddy.

Nope.  And the fact that you have to change the argument in order to make a statement against it is one of the reasons I do not think you guys have any actual reasoning here.  

In order for someone to use a MOD you are REQUIRED to purchase the original.  Your example is wrong because if I modified the movie and then sold it then the original would not be necessary.  I certainly could sell you something that goes along with the movie.  Indeed, people do that now.

 

[theFlu]

I think this is a grossly over-simplified statement that would not hold up in court except in very clearly specific situations.

All perfectly true; I might go as far as drop the exception part: it would not hold in court. But who would expect it to, I'm merely talking about the law, and it's purpose; not courts.

It is not a good idea to suggest to people that they can do whatever they want with copyrighted material

I never did... but if anyone is using 7dtd/general-chat as legal advice, boy do they have bigger problems than a random internet troll such as myself. Beyond my help, I would bet.

 

[Rotor]

... but if anyone is using 7dtd/general-chat as legal advice, boy do they have bigger problems than a random internet troll such as myself. Beyond my help, I would bet.

/Erases