oblitoro

I think this is a brilliant idea. There are so many mods I find 'essential' to my playthroughs that I never know who I would want to donate to, and how much I would want to donate. Question(s): * As a user, is it possible to directly donate to this pool, or are you using a percentage of supporter/premium subscriptions or ad revenue for the pool? Apologies if this has already been answered, I've read through the majority of the comments, but didn't see this come up.

I'm arguing over what it was designed to protect when it IS used. A review IS public scrutiny, how else would you define it? We're not going to agree on this, we should probably move on. Going to have dinner and make some hard choices. Does the institute get my services this time around, or do I go in with the BoS? Decisions, decisions. Not trying to make enemies or piss people off, and we're butting heads to a point where I don't see us agreeing on the base issue so I think I'm going to head back into lurk mode.

Correct. Also correct. True. And this is where you are wrong. Let me break it down for you: If someone makes a movie and displays, say, a work of art created in 2005, even for only a minute, they have violated the copyright of the creator of the art by displaying it in their film. It's that simple. Go look it up if you don't believe me. I'll even get you started. There is no "right" for something to be posted for "public scrutiny". Nice try, though. I believe that right is defined in the Consumer review fairness act. I could be wrong, there's no reason to get snarky. We're just having a conversation here. Your link is irrelevant as it does not pertain to what fair use was to designed to defend. Commentary, criticism and parody.

"Do your own research, perhaps? But I'll make it easy and list it here:" Well, I have done my research, thank you. "the right to reproduce the copyrighted work the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work the right to distribute copies of the work to the public the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly the right to display the copyrighted work publicly" 1. In no way shape or form does a 90 second video overview equate to the reproduction of a created work. 2. A reviewer does not make 'new editions' or adaptations of what they are reviewing, they do not make derivative works defined by law. 3. In what way is a 90 second video overview infringe upon an authors right to distribute their creations? It doesn't. 4. See 3. 5. See 3. "So, by displaying a copyrighted work without permission, MxR and other reviewers are violating the copyright holder's right to perform the copyrighted work publicly and/or their right to display the copyrighted work publicly." No it doesn't. A mod authors right to display their work does not remove the right of the work to be reviewed for public scrutiny. They are not exclusive to each other. "And, yes, mod authors hold the copyright to their created works." No argument here. Which is why we need to get off this subject and back to the moddrop issue. Modrop allows users to upload a complete mod (reproduce) and share it with their 'friends' (display, distribute), without the mod authors permission or knowledge. MxR has, in at least one of his videos stated that he will upload the mods he reviews to this site despite the fact that on at least one of the mods he reviews the permissions clearly state that the mod is not to be distributed on sites other than Nexus or Bethesda. There's no grey area here, if he does this he IS infringing on the copyright holders rights. The authors need to be aware of this.

"Fair use is an "affirmative defense", meaning that you only get to use it as a defense in a court of law after someone has sued you for copyright infringement. And the judge in the case gets to decide if, in fact, your copyright infringement is permissible under fair use." Agreed, and think it can be safely assumed that in this situation that it was easier and more lucrative for him to avoid the hassle of going to court and fighting injunctions against his entire channel, than to simply allow the video to be taken down. Agreed? Also in order to win a copyright infringement case the holder would have to prove the reviewer infringed upon their rights. What legal rights defined by copyright law do reviewers infringe upon? "Reviews of products, such as those "reviews" done by MxR, are protected under the law, specifically the "Consumer Review Fairness Act", but the law only restricts companies from using contract law to "bars or restricts the ability of a person who is a party to that contract to review a company's products, services, or conduct". But the law doesn't say that the company can't disallow monetization of said reviews, which is what MxR does (and constantly complains about as well)." I'm not sure it has to. In what industry do reviewers not get paid for their services? From Angie's list to Top Gear, reviewers have been earning substantial income for reviewing and entertaining their audiences. I don't know what the legalities are, but it's clearly a common practice and has been for a very long time.

Wait, wait, wait... Not defending the MxRs use of moddrop at all, BUT when did it become necessary for reviews to require author permission? Reviews are protected by fair use in order to allow the consumer to decide whether or not they want to use a product. Even though mods are free, they are products and mod users are consumers. Users rely on endorsement numbers and reviews when trying to create a stable mod environment that they will enjoy. We like to see what we're getting ourselves into before pulling the trigger and deciding to install this or that particular mod in our game. Saying MxR is dishonest for reviewing a mod the MA didn't want reviewed is a stretch. Requiring a creators permission to review would defeat the purpose. A review is not for the creators benefit, it's for the consumers/user. Back to moddrop issue. Can't support it, will never use. Hopefully more people will become aware of what he's promoting here and take him to task for it. A mod author lawfully has full control over the distribution of their creations and moddrop removes that control. This is indefensible and if he continues to promote this, I will do the only thing I can do, unsub and stop watching.