Is Rockstar's removal of 18 songs from the Steam version of San Andreas legal?

[Rozalia1]

Because I don't own San Andreas on Steam.

Well isn't that convenient... no matter I'll not push on that end.
Information on this issue is sparse as most of it consists of "boycott, rights, revolution, la-la land" but it seems that due to them not having the rights anymore, patching the game to add something (controller support from what I'm reading) meant they had to also patch the songs out from the looks of it.

It seems the mobile version and 360 version (which was the mobile one apparently) didn't have the songs to start with (which didn't seem to raise much of an uproar... well it is common for people to not care until it affects them)... there were two 360 versions, one upgraded without the songs, and the original version (which you can't download anymore). The PS3 didn't get the mobile version...but the original version was taken down regardless which would I suppose explain why the PS3 version wasn't targeted, makes no sense to patch something out of a version you've not been selling for years.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Well isn't that convenient.

It's very convenient for me because I still get to enjoy those songs. The first sentence that I wrote on this subject on page 1 is literally "Luckily I own old GTA games on disc". And I do feel lucky. As someone who's beaten San Andreas 15 times and played it for years, I couldn't imagine the game without them.

 

[Little Gray]

I'm sure it's legal, but I'm also sure that it shouldn't be.

...just looking at the flipside of this, you're saying it should be legal for a company use a band's song in their game for ever, even if they only paid for the rights to use it of a short period of time?

Dunno about you, but if I'm in a band that gets my song used in a game, and the publisher only pays me to use it for 12 months... I get that physical copies sold in the first 12 months can't be changed, but I'd expect that any subsequently printed physical copies, and digital copies, should either have my song removed, or the publisher should be paying me more for their continued use of my song.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty iffy about them patching the songs out of an already-purchased copy (physical or digital), and mostly I'm suggesting that the publishers should stop being such cheap bastards and just pay to extend the licences. But won't somebody think of the musicians here?

The issue is the RIAA and that they can often make Hitler look like a saint.

 

[AD-Stu]

I don't think that's correct. They bought the rights to put the song in their game, and that's the way it should stay. IF, and I stress if, there is a reason to limit the time the song remains in the game, then the newest versions of the game should not include that song, because Rockstar didn't pay for it till eternity. What shouldn't happen is allow Rockstar to retroactively remove the content from already sold copies of the game. Those customers bought the right to access that song as well, and now they've been robbed of that.

Like I said, I'm pretty iffy about them retrospectively patching them out of the game too. I have no idea what the legal position is on it, but it feels wrong.

The musicians here are the problem. Rockstar didn't do this, neither did Valve. While we are all talking about companies acting against consumer interest, take a look at the music industry. They are a dying industry that is failing to get over the fact that nobody buys CDs anymore. They are choosing not to adapt and threatening to sue anyone who does.

Erm... no, not quite. If you want to blame someone on the music side, you need to blame the musician's labels and/or publishers (as Little Gray points out above). This type of arrangement is hardly new or unique to gaming though. Ever watched, say, re-released footage of Attitude-era WWE? Quite a lot of the theme songs have been digitally altered to generic background music because the company didn't own the rights to the original artist's works, and didn't want to pay to renew the licence either. The Undertaker riding a motorbike around the ring while Limp Bizkit blared on the PA was ridiculous enough at the time, but it's even funnier when the soundtrack has been replaced by generic chugga-chugga guitars.

Personally I think it's only fair that the musicians get paid for the use of their music (or, at least, get paid the little bit that trickles down to the artist after the label takes its cut). If this furore has proven anything, it's that these songs were obviously a big selling point for people who bought the game - otherwise nobody would be kicking up this whole fuss. The musicians' work contributed to making the product sell more, and they deserve to be paid for that. If the game publisher only wants to pay for their work for a limited period, then it's only fair that they should stop receiving the marketing benefit of using those songs once the period ends.

As an aside, I think you're wrong about the music industry failing to adapt too. They were slow at first but they've very much embraced digital distribution in recent years. Hell, these days you'll often see companies quoting how many YouTube hits their artists have instead of, say, how many physical albums they've sold.

 

[mxc2012]

The musicians here are the problem. Rockstar didn't do this, neither did Valve. While we are all talking about companies acting against consumer interest, take a look at the music industry. They are a dying industry that is failing to get over the fact that nobody buys CDs anymore. They are choosing not to adapt and threatening to sue anyone who does.

Erm... no, not quite. If you want to blame someone on the music side, you need to blame the musician's labels and/or publishers (as Little Gray points out above). This type of arrangement is hardly new or unique to gaming though. Ever watched, say, re-released footage of Attitude-era WWE? Quite a lot of the theme songs have been digitally altered to generic background music because the company didn't own the rights to the original artist's works, and didn't want to pay to renew the licence either. The Undertaker riding a motorbike around the ring while Limp Bizkit blared on the PA was ridiculous enough at the time, but it's even funnier when the soundtrack has been replaced by generic chugga-chugga guitars.

If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. I agree the problem lies with the middlemen, the labels/publishers/riaa. But they are acting on behalf of the musicians. The musicians freely associate with these organizations, and therefore IMO should be responsible for the actions taken by those organizations on their behalf. It may not be new to gaming but that doesn't make it right or acceptable.

Personally I think it's only fair that the musicians get paid for the use of their music (or, at least, get paid the little bit that trickles down to the artist after the label takes its cut). If this furore has proven anything, it's that these songs were obviously a big selling point for people who bought the game - otherwise nobody would be kicking up this whole fuss. The musicians' work contributed to making the product sell more, and they deserve to be paid for that. If the game publisher only wants to pay for their work for a limited period, then it's only fair that they should stop receiving the marketing benefit of using those songs once the period ends.

I agree with you here. My problem lies with this. Let's say that I purchased the game when it was released. I paid money to the developer that was used to pay the license for the music. The musician got their cut. The game publisher is not benefiting from my copy of san andreas having the music. The game publishers are not benefiting by existing customers being able to receive the content they paid good money for. That said I see no reason why it shouldn't be taken out of future sales since the license ran out. I agree that in this case the game publisher would benefit without the artist receiving their share. My issue is with old sales having content retroactively removed.

As an aside, I think you're wrong about the music industry failing to adapt too. They were slow at first but they've very much embraced digital distribution in recent years. Hell, these days you'll often see companies quoting how many YouTube hits their artists have instead of, say, how many physical albums they've sold.

I'll agree to disagree with you on that. Looking at the recent fuss that musicians are kicking up about spotify, I don't see that they are trying to adapt at all. But I see your point about youtube hits. Piracy imo is a lazy excuse that both music and video game publishers have been using as scapegoats.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

No you don't own a book. You own it subject to conditions, just the same way as a game

"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Hey why bother with facts WHEN YOU CAN GET ANGRY.

That's saying you can't make copies and redistribute it. But that physical book in your hands, is protected by the first sale doctrine. I am legally allowed to give it to someone as a gift or even sell it once I have purchased it. Hence, I own it.

That does not give the publisher the right to come in and scribble on my book and change the wording. It doesnt give them the right to come take my version of the book and give me the new "edited version". They can be upset that that version of the book exists all they want, but it is mine because I bought it during the time period before it was edited, thus that is MY copy of the book. That was the agreement at the point of sale.

You seem to have that backwards, yes you do have the right to resell and do what you want with your[\b] copy. You do not have the right to have say in what happens to the original source material, unless of course they gave out that out.

That's not what he said. He said they've come and changed what he bought at the time, which is factually correct. What you are saying is that they changed the source. Yes, also correct, however in doing so they also changed the version that everyone who already bought the game had.

This is definitely not cool and I can't wait to see what the EU courts say about this, because they actually give a shit about consumer rights.

Then if they can not remove the music due to the license expiring then they would have to pull it and not allowed to sell it. Again you bought the license to play the game, anything they change is up to them. Go play a online game and read the EULA, it's pretty much "We reserve the right to change what we want with no notice". By this logic you shouldn't be able to issue a balance patch to a fighting game because that changes what I paid for originally.

 

[Lightknight]

In allowing steam to automatically update the game I'm guessing you gave the creator rights to modify the game at will.

I would strongly recommend turning auto-update off in that event. It's san andreas, doesn't need to and wont need to be updated.

 

[Something Amyss]

The issue is the RIAA and that they can often make Hitler look like a saint.

Wait, what? The guys who took away some music in a game and sometimes sue people make the guy responsible for millions of deaths in one of the most horrific periods of modern history look like a saint?

 

[John Santina]

Also don't get too mad at Rockstar, they'd have no logical reason to do this but for the music rights owners being dicks.

This. I produce music and it is a wonder how ridiculous some musicians can be when allowing the sampling of their music, let alone the rights to the music as a whole.

You pay a fee, you make a song using the sample, you go to release the song then a loophole means you can't release the song unless you pay X to get it across the finish line. Annoying.

I imagine the copyright owners have argued that the license purchased by Rockstar has somehow elapsed and they need to pay more to use the songs. Some songs may have been renewed for a reasonable fees, but there are always those other songs that just get inflated because the copyright owners think they can earn an extra buck by playing hard ball.

JS

 

[Dogstile]

No you don't own a book. You own it subject to conditions, just the same way as a game

"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Hey why bother with facts WHEN YOU CAN GET ANGRY.

That's saying you can't make copies and redistribute it. But that physical book in your hands, is protected by the first sale doctrine. I am legally allowed to give it to someone as a gift or even sell it once I have purchased it. Hence, I own it.

That does not give the publisher the right to come in and scribble on my book and change the wording. It doesnt give them the right to come take my version of the book and give me the new "edited version". They can be upset that that version of the book exists all they want, but it is mine because I bought it during the time period before it was edited, thus that is MY copy of the book. That was the agreement at the point of sale.

You seem to have that backwards, yes you do have the right to resell and do what you want with your[\b] copy. You do not have the right to have say in what happens to the original source material, unless of course they gave out that out.

That's not what he said. He said they've come and changed what he bought at the time, which is factually correct. What you are saying is that they changed the source. Yes, also correct, however in doing so they also changed the version that everyone who already bought the game had.

This is definitely not cool and I can't wait to see what the EU courts say about this, because they actually give a shit about consumer rights.

Then if they can not remove the music due to the license expiring then they would have to pull it and not allowed to sell it. Again you bought the license to play the game, anything they change is up to them. Go play a online game and read the EULA, it's pretty much "We reserve the right to change what we want with no notice". By this logic you shouldn't be able to issue a balance patch to a fighting game because that changes what I paid for originally.

How many times are we going to have to go over EULA's not being legally binding in the EU?

It's been ruled against, multiple times. They don't count for shit over here. A balance patch and removal of content are two completely separate things. Imagine if you tried to play street fighter and they took out Ryu? That's the equivalent, not tweaking his fireball to fire slower.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

No you don't own a book. You own it subject to conditions, just the same way as a game

"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Hey why bother with facts WHEN YOU CAN GET ANGRY.

That's saying you can't make copies and redistribute it. But that physical book in your hands, is protected by the first sale doctrine. I am legally allowed to give it to someone as a gift or even sell it once I have purchased it. Hence, I own it.

That does not give the publisher the right to come in and scribble on my book and change the wording. It doesnt give them the right to come take my version of the book and give me the new "edited version". They can be upset that that version of the book exists all they want, but it is mine because I bought it during the time period before it was edited, thus that is MY copy of the book. That was the agreement at the point of sale.

You seem to have that backwards, yes you do have the right to resell and do what you want with your[\b] copy. You do not have the right to have say in what happens to the original source material, unless of course they gave out that out.

That's not what he said. He said they've come and changed what he bought at the time, which is factually correct. What you are saying is that they changed the source. Yes, also correct, however in doing so they also changed the version that everyone who already bought the game had.

This is definitely not cool and I can't wait to see what the EU courts say about this, because they actually give a shit about consumer rights.

Then if they can not remove the music due to the license expiring then they would have to pull it and not allowed to sell it. Again you bought the license to play the game, anything they change is up to them. Go play a online game and read the EULA, it's pretty much "We reserve the right to change what we want with no notice". By this logic you shouldn't be able to issue a balance patch to a fighting game because that changes what I paid for originally.

How many times are we going to have to go over EULA's not being legally binding in the EU?

It's been ruled against, multiple times. They don't count for shit over here. A balance patch and removal of content are two completely separate things. Imagine if you tried to play street fighter and they took out Ryu? That's the equivalent, not tweaking his fireball to fire slower.

But you are still changing content after I paid for said product. The difference is scope and people hate these changes. If I'm used to using a character and you change it so it has a different feel is that any different? People argue ownership, but all we own with these games is a license to play them.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Just a cold reminder that gamers have no real consumer rights.
No refunds, no real right to lawsuit, and the publisher arbitration will always rule in their favor because money talks.

Everything is licensed, so where digital retail is concerned, they could take your games away tomorrow, keep your money, and laugh at your tears. Of course, they won't do that, because they're counting on their reputation to ensure future business opportunities. But they could, if they lost their fucking minds.

However..How long until we are only renting games per hour? really?

As a mandated standard on PC? I'd give it a few years, but I can see it happening, given how ignorant gutless and complacent the average gamer is on these subjects. They allowed horribly price-gouging DLC and microtransactions to flourish, so I don't see why Always-Online imprisonment and eternal rentals would bother them either.

The only real organized backlash I've seen against that was vs the pre-180 Xbone last year.
But even then, there were some incredibly stupid (or insane...or bribed) people defending that garbage.
Who knows? Maybe the market is more addicted and pliable than I thought?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Whenever I get a game on Steam, the first thing I do is check to see if they have it at GOG. If so, I get a Steam Code thingy instead and unlock it at GOG.

I hope to high heaven you're talking about "getting" games as gifts. And not buying it from Steam only to download it through a competing storefront that deserves to get your money if you're using their service instead.

All radio station sounds are in a single file per radio station, so the only way to remove some songs is to download a complete new file and rewrite the old one. You cannot magically unpack the files, cut parts of the audio, and then repack it again for every single user.

Actually, you can! Except for the "magically" part. It's one of the cool features of Steamworks that files can be modified in pieces - it compares the old file to the new one and only downloads and overwrites the parts that have changed. That's how Valve is able to cram all the textures in a game like Team Fortress 2 into a single 4GB+ file and still release an update with new items and textures that's less than 100MB total.

Third-party publishers just choose to not take the time learning how to use it properly.

 

[RavingSturm]

If there's no push back, this kind of stuff will become legal. When they sell a license it should say so not "game". They should be accused of false advertising. 20% off pre-orders for license to play COD:AW at GMG should be printed in advertisements.

 

[RavingSturm]

Just a cold reminder that gamers have no real consumer rights.
No refunds, no real right to lawsuit, and the publisher arbitration will always rule in their favor because money talks.

Everything is licensed, so where digital retail is concerned, they could take your games away tomorrow, keep your money, and laugh at your tears. Of course, they won't do that, because they're counting on their reputation to ensure future business opportunities. But they could, if they lost their fucking minds.

However..How long until we are only renting games per hour? really?

As a mandated standard on PC? I'd give it a few years, but I can see it happening, given how ignorant gutless and complacent the average gamer is on these subjects. They allowed horribly price-gouging DLC and microtransactions to flourish, so I don't see why Always-Online imprisonment and eternal rentals would bother them either.

The only real organized backlash I've seen against that was vs the pre-180 Xbone last year.
But even then, there were some incredibly stupid (or insane...or bribed) people defending that garbage.
Who knows? Maybe the market is more addicted and pliable than I thought?

Its pretty obvious there are shills in gaming forums especially in publisher owned sites. Their main job is to silence/shout down or give the impression that there are many gullible customers who will go along with such anti-consumer practices.

 

[Rozalia1]

Its pretty obvious there are shills in gaming forums especially in publisher owned sites. Their main job is to silence/shout down or give the impression that there are many gullible customers who will go along with such anti-consumer practices.

Pro tip. When you devolve into calling those who oppose you essentially spies you've lost the argument.
People disagreeing with you can be just that, there doesn't need to be some grand conspiracy at work.

 

[RavingSturm]

Its pretty obvious there are shills in gaming forums especially in publisher owned sites. Their main job is to silence/shout down or give the impression that there are many gullible customers who will go along with such anti-consumer practices.

Pro tip. When you devolve into calling those who oppose you essentially spies you've lost the argument.
People disagreeing with you can be just that, there doesn't need to be some grand conspiracy at work.

That doesnt rule out their existence either. If you buy that everybody on the internet is honest, chummy or forthright then I've got a bridge for sale. Astroturfing/paid comments are a reality.

 

[Little Gray]

The issue is the RIAA and that they can often make Hitler look like a saint.

Wait, what? The guys who took away some music in a game and sometimes sue people make the guy responsible for millions of deaths in one of the most horrific periods of modern history look like a saint?

Its called hyperbole. Seriously what type of crappy school did you go to?

 

[Something Amyss]

Its called hyperbole. Seriously what type of crappy school did you go to?

One where we learned how to spell "histrionics" correctly.

 

[Something Amyss]

That doesnt rule out their existence either. If you buy that everybody on the internet is honest, chummy or forthright then I've got a bridge for sale. Astroturfing/paid comments are a reality.

The problem is that the leap from "not everyone is chummy" to "there's this group of people out to shout us down for sinister reasons" is not demonstrated here.

That's conspiracy theory territory.