Who is and isn't protected depends on the Network deciding who will be considered Affiliate or Managed. There is no standard and it will vary depending on size of the network along with how many people are in it. For example, RPM and Fullscreen are relatively small and have a large amount of members, so it's safe to assume that most of the channels partnered with them will be considered affiliate. On the other hand, the larger networks like Machinima, TGS, and Polaris have strict and difficult application processes and have many channels partnered with them that have anywhere from 25k subscribers to PewDiePie's level of subscribers (PewDiePie being the most subscribed to channel on YouTube currently with Smosh in second). It's safe to assume that the really big channels will be made Managed, but again it'll vary depending on how the networks handle it. Mainly because if your network were to make you a Managed channel that would mean that if you got a Copyright strike so would your Network. 3 strikes and your channel gets banned, and if you are a Managed channel then that means your network goes down as well, screwing over many more.rbstewart7263 said:so what lets players are protected from this? gamegrumps? who all is managed per se?
That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?the hidden eagle said:I wouldn't say so because you can only act within the confines of the programming. That's why cheating's regarded as breaking the EULA.
Well that depends, does the IP then stretch to include the commentary if so, surely it's a collaborative work? As one can not exist without the other, the LP needs the game and the game is enhanced through the commentary?the hidden eagle said:Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?
In many EULA that is actually breaking the contracts of it. Modifications of games without the approval of the developer is against the EULAs of many, but it depends on how the publisher/developer acts upon it.Rellik San said:That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?
So... in effect, creating a community patch because a game has trouble working, in other words, making the product (sorry licensed product) functional on your machine could be breaching the EULA and as a result see you shut down or worse?Neronium said:In many EULA that is actually breaking the contracts of it. Modifications of games without the approval of the developer is against the EULAs of many, but it depends on how the publisher/developer acts upon it.Rellik San said:That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?
For example, take the Sonic community for example. There have been many mods that have been shut down by SEGA for "violating copyright" which is stated in many EULAs to be a violation. Modification of consoles is generally not allowed either, with in the past it being more that you would just void the warranty, but with how consoles and other devices can connect to the internet now if modification is detected then it will either be disabled or your console will be bricked.
Now if the publisher/developer allows for modding then everything is pretty much open season as legally you've been given the right to modify. It's why Bethesda is very well received in the modding community, because the tools for it have been released officially by Bethesda and Bethesda encourages mods. Minecraft is similar in this as Mojang allows for mods to be made, but as such if fan mods are made and someone were to get in legal trouble then Mojang is not legally responsible for that mod and aren't affected.
Pretty much yeah, but again it depends on how the company handles it. When it comes to older games then patching it is usually fine as the older companies either a) are defunct now, or b) allow for modding it for compatibility issues. It's also why game companies tell you to wait for their official patches since they have access to the Master Rom and main programming so can generally patch things better. Another reason is that if a community patch were to go viral and many people were to download it, and then their games suddenly stopped working, then the publisher/developer could be held responsible for the damages, hence why many companies put in their EULAs a clause about modification and what you can and can't do.Rellik San said:So... in effect, creating a community patch because a game has trouble working, in other words, making the product (sorry licensed product) functional on your machine could be breaching the EULA and as a result see you shut down or worse?
That... is a really sad state of affairs. I've never been a fan of EULAs to begin with, too much legal jargon that could be condensed into a shorter format that's easier to understand, I know it has to be full of legal jargon to be a formal contract... but still something needs to be done. That said, guess I'm preaching to a lot of the choir here.
Resale for physical media is allowed, but is trying to be curbed out by game publishers and developers over the last couple of years. Resale is allowed, but again mainly only for physical media. That's why there is a debate on whether digital resales should be allowed as well.Rellik San said:Just one last quick thought, typically a EULA is none transferable, so surely if one was a binding contract in any fashion, that would mean the resale of games would completely illegal surely?
As right of resale implies ownership of the product, not a single use license. In that case then, couldn't it be successful argued that these are consumer products not licenses sold? I know things like Online Passes kind of circumvent it by asking you to buy a new license for multi-player... but by and large.
So all of those NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Playstation, Playstation 2, X-box, DS, PSP, ect. ect. games that people have sold are all being illegally sold to other people or businesses? What the EULA (At least in physical form) means is that you are not allowed to do stuff with the actual software involved with the game like distributing it to other people. The pixels on the screen that are producing an image are not the software, they are the end product of what the software is doing but a person can't replicate a video-game by looking at gameplay footage.The Great Fungus said:the hidden eagle said:SNIPSo I finally made an account just to reply to you two.Specter Von Baren said:SNIP
One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.
On topic: While I don't want innocent people to lose their livelihoods, I don't think anything of value would be lost if LPs disappeared.
If I recall correctly, that case's ruling was officially because the court(s) saw it as a product, not a license - thus establishing such in the EU. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I've heard of several cases in the U.S. that ruled the opposite, though the one court where such a decision would really matter here (the Supreme Court) has yet to tackle this subject. What we can say for certain though is that, regardless of whether or not companies consider it a license, it is meaningless if the applicable legal system(s) in place says otherwise.The Great Fungus said:I agree completely. My point was merely that games have always been sold as licenses and we've never had complete control over them. I know the EU has allowed digital copies to be resold despite what EULAS used to say. However, I'm not aware of any other rulings regarding the ownership of games.
Gotta say, I have a hard time supporting Dave's side with his 7-10 figure income compared to Jane's 5 figure income.Rancid0ffspring said:But the LP's are making money out of someone elses property. I'm pretty sure ost EULA's state that a game can't be used for personal profit. Shouldn't the LP's pay some royalties to the owner of the game? As we all know, when you purchase a disk/digital copy of a game you're purchasing the license to play it. Same with a film or album.Specter Von Baren said:SNIP
The game doesn't become your property. Similar to the pre-owned game market. Publishers introduced online passes to ensure they were being paid for people using their games. While I never liked it I most certainly didn't disagree with it. Why should anyone get to use an online service that they haven't paid to help maintain?
EDIT: Try yet another perspective. Dave has worked his arse off. Dave finished some project that'll make his own and Jane's life easier increasing both of their productivity. Jane takese credit then gets a pay rise.
Dave's life has been made easier which is nice but no pay rise. Jane is reaping the financial reward from Dave's work. Why didn't Dave get a raise? Jane has done nothing to earn it other than use Dave's idea.
Incase people can't wrap their head around this....
Dave = Game's Publishers
Jane = LP's
Idea = Game
As long as it has better policies than google that wouldn't be a bad thing. Youtube has a history of every update creating more problems than it solves and their pushing of google+ and real names is getting annoying.SourMilk said:And then what? something, someone bigger will come along and take it's place.
Depends on what you think theft is. The idea of theft is centered around scarcity, where the property of one is taken by another with no agreement over conditions taking place. Due to software's nature of being infinitely transferable, the rules of scarcity do not apply so content creators have gone through steps to create artificial scarcity. Thus, intellectual property is a thing now. It was first created with the idea that a creator benefits from a temporary monopoly over their idea, then be open to everyone without restriction so others can use it to create something new and, over time, advance society as a whole.The Great Fungus said:Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?
Nevermind that IP law is outdated, if TB is to be believed. And it's abused, but more on the american side than anything. The problem is, IP started out as a way of protection to artists. But over time, funding got pulled, so the office needed some way to make money. Making it easier, getting more contracts, thus more money.-Dragmire- said:This... hasn't been working out well lately. Instead of expanding the amount of people who can benefit from an idea, the push for more control over an idea has never been stronger. Nintendo had revenue streams divert to them (not sure if they caved to public outcry and stopped that though), I imagine similar thoughts are on the minds of many other publishers too.The Great Fungus said:Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?