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

[Savagezion]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Major_Tom]

(and somehow that requires 400mb of downloading to do, because for some reason that's a thing that needs to be done and has nothing to do with the devs being lazy about the downgrade)

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.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Similarly, without a license, the developers cannot make patches for their game. If you want a patch, you'd need to buy a new game.

Why do I never see people bring that up?

 

[Bart XB]

A lot of old TV shows are ruined by this as well. I loved Tour of Duty (A Vietnam war series) and it had all the great songs from the sixties. The intro was Paint It Black! Awesome.

When it got released on DVD they took out the music because they didn't have the rights for the movies to be put on DVD. It destroyed the atmosphere of that show. The music was so important for the immersion and it had so many scene that were great because of the music. Like how the pilot mounted speakers on his chopper to blast rock 'n roll when he came to the rescue of the ground troops. Now it's just some generic asian flute music.

That being said. Vice City allowed to import your own songs. Can't you do the same with San Andreas?

 

[Savagezion]

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.

Similarly, without a license, the developers cannot make patches for their game. If you want a patch, you'd need to buy a new game.

Why do I never see people bring that up?

That is a good point and I am surprised no one else brought it up. I have been waiting for it. However, a patch could easily be under the terms of a recall. Sometimes a car will be sold with a safety defect and if you take it in to a dealership they will install the fix for free. (Actually this is the term recall but there is another term) It's basically going, "whoops we missed something, we'll fix it for free". Now, that is more to do with laws concerning safety and vehicles, but I am sure such an act of offering free upgrades to your product could be done and not have it be illegal. However, the option to upgrade is still on the consumer. You can still keep your unsafe car, unsafe and not be able to sue so long as they provided you with a way to upgrade for free. There is a way for them to still patch, and even still auto patch through steam through customer option.

 

[Something Amyss]

That is a good point and I am surprised no one else brought it up. I have been waiting for it. However, a patch could easily be under the terms of a recall. Sometimes a car will be sold with a safety defect and if you take it in to a dealership they will install the fix for free. (Actually this is the term recall but there is another term) It's basically going, "whoops we missed something, we'll fix it for free". Now, that is more to do with laws concerning safety and vehicles, but I am sure such an act of offering free upgrades to your product could be done and not have it be illegal. However, the option to upgrade is still on the consumer. You can still keep your unsafe car, unsafe and not be able to sue so long as they provided you with a way to upgrade for free. There is a way for them to still patch, and even still auto patch through steam through customer option.

Most of this could also fall under basic warranty premises. The ones where a product is guaranteed to be free of defects for a certain amount of time.

However, in both cases, they are not required to honour it by providing the same product. To that end, I've recently had my guitar replaced for a model of equal or greater value because they broke mine.

So I'm not sure the "patch" idea lines up.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Similarly, without a license, the developers cannot make patches for their game. If you want a patch, you'd need to buy a new game.

Why do I never see people bring that up?

That is a good point and I am surprised no one else brought it up. I have been waiting for it. However, a patch could easily be under the terms of a recall. Sometimes a car will be sold with a safety defect and if you take it in to a dealership they will install the fix for free. (Actually this is the term recall but there is another term) It's basically going, "whoops we missed something, we'll fix it for free". Now, that is more to do with laws concerning safety and vehicles, but I am sure such an act of offering free upgrades to your product could be done and not have it be illegal. However, the option to upgrade is still on the consumer. You can still keep your unsafe car, unsafe and not be able to sue so long as they provided you with a way to upgrade for free. There is a way for them to still patch, and even still auto patch through steam through customer option.

However, by not being powerless to do patches (by default) there is little incentive for the developers to make them. Sure, some still would but largely, the software would be seen as a static product. When it should be nothing but. Imagine some other software interferes with your one. You can create a patch but how would you distribute it in the whole world in such a way that it's legal? It's not a recall, for your customers would be required to turn in their copies and you need to create a new one. Surely not an option worth picking up - you basically need to re-burn a CD for all the physical copies which costs a lot. If some regional law prohibits non-essential modifications (in this case, it'd be the customers having the developer modify their copy of the game) then the customers are fucked. Because I can't see it deemed as essential, if you can simply not use the third party software. Even if you need it. Then we have the problem of what exactly would the developer be modifying? Is it what the customer uses to install the game? Does it need to be once or every time the game is installed?

With all these legal questions in the way, I'd imagine a lot of developers would simply opt to not make a patch instead. It's far simpler this way. Also, it's not really required, now is it - your toaster doesn't work if it's next to the microwave? Tough luck, then.

And with all this said, it would still require the laws to actually take software into account. Software being software and products not being static. So-o-o, you're actually not advancing anything there. It does work against your initial argument, in fact, of games being purely static products.

 

[Savagezion]

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.

Similarly, without a license, the developers cannot make patches for their game. If you want a patch, you'd need to buy a new game.

Why do I never see people bring that up?

That is a good point and I am surprised no one else brought it up. I have been waiting for it. However, a patch could easily be under the terms of a recall. Sometimes a car will be sold with a safety defect and if you take it in to a dealership they will install the fix for free. (Actually this is the term recall but there is another term) It's basically going, "whoops we missed something, we'll fix it for free". Now, that is more to do with laws concerning safety and vehicles, but I am sure such an act of offering free upgrades to your product could be done and not have it be illegal. However, the option to upgrade is still on the consumer. You can still keep your unsafe car, unsafe and not be able to sue so long as they provided you with a way to upgrade for free. There is a way for them to still patch, and even still auto patch through steam through customer option.

However, by not being powerless to do patches (by default) there is little incentive for the developers to make them. Sure, some still would but largely, the software would be seen as a static product. When it should be nothing but. Imagine some other software interferes with your one. You can create a patch but how would you distribute it in the whole world in such a way that it's legal? It's not a recall, for your customers would be required to turn in their copies and you need to create a new one. Surely not an option worth picking up - you basically need to re-burn a CD for all the physical copies which costs a lot. If some regional law prohibits non-essential modifications (in this case, it'd be the customers having the developer modify their copy of the game) then the customers are fucked. Because I can't see it deemed as essential, if you can simply not use the third party software. Even if you need it. Then we have the problem of what exactly would the developer be modifying? Is it what the customer uses to install the game? Does it need to be once or every time the game is installed?

With all these legal questions in the way, I'd imagine a lot of developers would simply opt to not make a patch instead. It's far simpler this way. Also, it's not really required, now is it - your toaster doesn't work if it's next to the microwave? Tough luck, then.

And with all this said, it would still require the laws to actually take software into account. Software being software and products not being static. So-o-o, you're actually not advancing anything there. It does work against your initial argument, in fact, of games being purely static products.

Actually recalls are sometimes just updates. Recently dodge had a recall on ignition switches. You could take your truck into the dealer and get a new ignition switch put on for free. It doesn't actually demand you send it in. You could distribute the patch in the same way they do now but the laws concerning ownership and licensing would just be trashed. By providing the fix online, you have provided a way for the consumer to "fix" their broken product for free. Same as having to drive to the dealership to get the free upgrade.

Many developers already opt to not make a patch in our current system. (You can still shoot through and be shot through walls on X-Com:EU remake) We aren't really benefiting from this system currently in the works any more than we would the other one. Except if the games are sold as products, consumers would retain the right to the content they bought at the time of purchase. They would just also retain the right to 'upgrade' it if they so choose. Basically, Rockstar would have to stop selling copies with those songs on it, but those who already bought it, own the original copy and the rights to that content.

EDIT: As well, I never claimed static products. As you can see not even cars are necessarily static products. A video card is a product that you have to update drivers for. Many products are not static.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

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.

Similarly, without a license, the developers cannot make patches for their game. If you want a patch, you'd need to buy a new game.

Why do I never see people bring that up?

Because they're not stupid. Patches improve the game. They exist to benefit the consumer. If companies didn't provide patches for their software they'd be out of customers soon enough.

This doesn't qualify because it doesn't help the consumer in any way. This ruins the experience that the consumer has already payed for. You can't remove content from the game after it's been purchased. And all of you corporate apologists can cite the stupid "you own a license" rhetoric all night, it doesn't change the fact that the fuckin' license that you payed for included those songs. Under consumer protection laws, if a consumer feels that removal of these songs affects the game on a fundamental level, he has the legal right to demand either a patch to restore the content or demand a refund. Consumer rights trump corporate interests, at least in the EU. And no amount of corporate apologist argument will change that fact.

As for these corporate apologists.
The fact that they exist without knowing what they are is a huge problem. You think that you're being smart and logical because you know how to cite the law? It never occurred to you that the corporations payed the politicians to set up those laws in such a way that DOESN'T FUCKIN' BENEFIT YOU?! And that some of those laws are ancient and in dire need of change?
Stop defending the corporations. The law doesn't matter. What matters is that you're a fuckin consumer, and the corporations managed to brainwash you into believing that it's OK not to own the thing that you payed for. That it's OK that they can decide to take away something that you payed for, or change it so that it no longer serves the purpose that you wanted it to serve. And then you come here and you argue about it, fully believing that you're on the right side of the issue. It's not fuckin' OK, regardless of the pro-corporate laws. Get it through your thick skulls that if you don't stand up for yourself and your consumer rights, no one else will.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Man this sucks. Running Down A Dream was one of my favourites on KDST.

But seriously, do not be angry at Rockstar, be angry at the shitty way in which music is 'licensed' rather than 'sold'. The music industry is the biggest gouge.

 

[Rozalia1]

Because they're not stupid. Patches improve the game. They exist to benefit the consumer. If companies didn't provide patches for their software they'd be out of customers soon enough.

This doesn't qualify because it doesn't help the consumer in any way. This ruins the experience that the consumer has already payed for. You can't remove content from the game after it's been purchased. And all of you corporate apologists can cite the stupid "you own a license" rhetoric all night, it doesn't change the fact that the fuckin' license that you payed for included those songs. Under consumer protection laws, if a consumer feels that removal of these songs affects the game on a fundamental level, he has the legal right to demand either a patch to restore the content or demand a refund. Consumer rights trump corporate interests, at least in the EU. And no amount of corporate apologist argument will change that fact.

As for these corporate apologists.
The fact that they exist without knowing what they are is a huge problem. You think that you're being smart and logical because you know how to cite the law? It never occurred to you that the corporations payed the politicians to set up those laws in such a way that DOESN'T FUCKIN' BENEFIT YOU?! And that some of those laws are ancient and in dire need of change?
Stop defending the corporations. The law doesn't matter. What matters is that you're a fuckin consumer, and the corporations managed to brainwash you into believing that it's OK not to own the thing that you payed for. That it's OK that they can decide to take away something that you payed for, or change it so that it no longer serves the purpose that you wanted it to serve. And then you come here and you argue about it, fully believing that you're on the right side of the issue. It's not fuckin' OK, regardless of the pro-corporate laws. Get it through your thick skulls that if you don't stand up for yourself and your consumer rights, no one else will.

Calm yourself down because the insults to people isn't going to do any favours. You think you have knowledge of some grand revelation that we don't? Everything you've regurgitated has been heard before, and its clear what the contents of it is...fantasy. Life isn't fair nor does it revolve around anyone.

Lets talk reality for a second. You know clearly what the law says. Why don't you if you're so angry take them to court?

 

[AD-Stu]

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?

 

[Signa]

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?

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.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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?

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.

It's funny because when Sega removed licensed songs from Crazy Taxi BEFORE it came out people did nothing but ***** and moan about it. The thing is using licensed music has all kinda of stupid strings attached to it, I argue against using incensed music for this very reason. Because even in games in the past it's always been a issue down the road, Earthbound took for freaking ever because it was sighted to be a copyright nightmare because of the music "borrowed" in it. Same with Square and why they wouldn't release Kingdom Hearts BBS digitally for the psp at first. This isn't some new thing, hell you want an example of this watch the GTA episode of Code Monkeys, where a VA wanted more money cause the game got big even though he was already paid. I really think it was a issue with how the game was distributed that caused the issue. Digital download's not being in the contract and when the licensed expired Rockstar most likely didn't bother because
A)The rights holders are most likely asking for MORE money
B)Rockstar didn't see it fitting to resign cause they wouldn't make enough money to justify it.

 

[NiPah]

Ah this sucks, it sounds like a new feature of Steam voided some of the past license terms for certain songs.
What really sucks is that most people won't even be using that Steam TV feature, especially when playing a game like San Andreas, I just wish they could have found a different work-around such as muting radio stations for people watching via the TV function.
Oh well, sucks for the people playing this.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Well, that's what you get for not listening to WCTR, the radio station of winners.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Lets talk reality for a second. You know clearly what the law says. Why don't you if you're so angry take them to court?

Because I don't own San Andreas on Steam.

 

[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.

 

[mxc2012]

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

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 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.

To the OP's question: Is it legal? Unfortunately yes.