Attacks from Old Media against popuar Youtube Content Creators

[pnkssbtz]

Hello all,

This is my first post here but I've been lurking on this board and using the mods for over 6 years. Anyways, I wanted to raise a discussion and talk about some trends I've been seeing going on, here on this forum specifically, as an incident relative to the primary topic was perpetrated by a member of this modding community.


Right now, the business models of the old Media corporations are dying. It's a well documented fact that print news is out, and that even subscription sites like the Wall Street Journal are struggling and still rely on ad revenue. The viewership, or market share or however you want to label the consumer-base for this type of content have been increasingly going to other sources such as smaller news organizations, bloggers, news aggregator websites such as reddit or youtube personalities such as Phillip DeFranco.

This is a direct threat against the old Media and to combat this, they have been doing very disingenuous "hit" pieces on high-subscriber base Youtube personalities.


I'm sure everyone here is aware of the completely hyperbole and fictitious claims that WSJ made against Youtuber PewDiePie, where WSJ created a video with Hitler, Nazi Flags and marching Nazi troops as background for quoting PewDiePie out of context all while playing Nazi music to try and force a connection between the out-of-context material and the claim that PewDiePie is anti-semitic.

Now the Daily Mail is claiming that Joerg Sprave's Slingshot Channel is being attacked. This time under the claim that Terrorist use Jeorg Sprave's videos (on slingshots) as a training manual. Specifically focusing on one video in which he reviews a commercially available product that claims to be a stab-proof vest. No actual factual support is presented to substantiate the claim that terrorist are in fact using the video as a training manual, but despite this lack of evidence, the damage has bee done.


In the case of PewDiePie, the damage was that he lost his Disney contract to produce content, as well as some contracts with Google. A substantial amount of money.

In the case of Jeorg Spave, he now has one "strike" against his channel for "community guideline violations" under the claim that a review of a safety products failure to live up to it's claims violates the "harmful and dangerous content" guidelines. If he receives two more strikes, he permanently loses his channel, and the ewprimary source of income.


Which brings me to the incident perpetrated by a member of this modding community.


Youtube content creators currently live under a "three strikes" Sword of Damocles fear. Not only are the Youtube Guide Lines completely ambiguous and subjective, (under the guideline for harmful and dangerous content, the Nottingham University Chemistry Channel "Periodic Videos" should be banned as they clearly demonstrate how to make explosives on their channel) they are also rife with abuse. The primary source of which is false Copyright Claims.

Unlike actual law, and the letter of the law that Youtube cites (the DMCA), Youtube operates under a "guilty until proven innocent" ideology (despite the DMCA allowing for verification and substantiation before action) as that is the easiest and safest way (for them) to handle the matter. However that means that if you are a content creator, and someone makes a Copyright Claim against you, you get one Strike against your account and you must now fight to prove your innocence. Instead of the claimant having to prove their argument the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant.

And this is fine and all for people who genuinely do violate copyright law, but it has become more and more of a tool to shutdown opposition, or to force people to do what you want (the three strikes system has been used to blackmail content producers). As regardless of whether your copyright claim is legit or not, Youtube will act as if it is until the defendant can prove otherwise.

Which brings me to this video in which popular Youtuber Nexus Mod Reviewer MXR had one of his videos taken down under a false copyright claim and is now suffering one strike. The actual cause for the false copyright claim being the claimant wanting to "defend" the "other" mod creators content that she bundled with her own. That's right, this person also filed copyright claim on mods that they self admit they do not have claim to.

Despite the facts that:

1.) There is this thing called "fair use" and doing a review/evaluation of something falls under this purview.
2.) Mod creators technically don't own the Skyrim Mods they create, these are in fact all property of Bethesda Softworks, and that it is they who have the legitimate copyright claim (if any).

This person did not even privately contact MXR asking for him to remove the video, instead they just failed the blatantly false copyright claim.

In addition to this, they have also disabled all commenting on their mods as well as disabled private messaging, making it impossible for any legitimate resolution or recourse to be had.d

I'm sure that this person was receiving quite a bit of anger for their actions, but I find such actions, making a false copyright claims then disabling all means of feedback to be equally as despicable and justification for the anger they are receiving.


In closing, I'm tired of selfish, disingenuous, liars and criminals abusing Youtube's policies to damage the various internet communities and other people for no reason other than their own selfishness and greed. I believe this is an emerging topic we need to openly discuss and action needs to be taken within each community to curtail such abuses.

[DoctorKaizeld]

 

2.) Mod creators technically don't own the Skyrim Mods they create, these are in fact all property of Bethesda Softworks, and that it is they who have the legitimate copyright claim (if any).

you are wrong on this point. Bethesda only owns their assets not custom assets (which is all mods) and they have stated that mod owners own their own mods themselves. the only mods beth has any claim of ownership on are mods that use premade Beth assets (weapons mods that use mash ups of other vanilla weapons and all three of my mods)

[AGreatWeight]

Your post show that you are at best unfamiliar with the facts of this situation, and at worst wholly ignorant. I'll address the fallacies in order:

1) 'Fair use' is not a right, it is a defense.

2) Please refer to the Creation Kit EULA regarding the ownership of mods. Bethesda clearly state that mod authors are the owners of the mods they make. Mods are not the property of Bethesda/Zenimax, and the i.p. and copyright belong to the author of the work. You'd know this if you'd actually read the CK EULA, or the very public post that Bethesda made over on Bethesda.net regarding this.

You would do well to gather all the facts about situations like this before you come to any conclusions, form any opinions, or especially write forum posts about them. With the MXR video takedown, you only know one side of the story, and he isn't being truely open and honest about it as he'd prefer to paint himself as the poor victim by omitting information that paints him in a less than favourable light.

[Nilanius]

I am going to give my own feedback on this whole situation. The mod in question, used assets belonging to other mod authors. MXR showcased the mod, even gave it decent praise. But the creator launched a false attack on his channel which did give him a strike. No other mod creator ever had issues with their mod being showed off. But this one did. And her takedown of said mod, disabling commenting on her other videos and even feedback, suggest she had something to hide. I'm more than willing to bet, she probably used someone else's mod without permission and this whole situation was her trying to take eyes off her mod, but in the end, it shined a bad spotlight on her instead.

 

I know for a fact, there's other videos on youtube, that showcase her mod that have gotten no strikes. And it was through the other videos I found her name and the first thing I did was come on Nexus, goto her channel and blacklisted her. I will never download a mod by someone that goes after someone for what I view, are petty reasons. If she had permission from the other mod authors that she included in her mod, which makes her mod not copyrightable, as it was 90% not original content she created, then seems to me them mod authors she had permission from, would of came out and said "yeah she has my permission to include my mod in hers". Too much shadyness for my taste. I will never see a single mod she creates from this time forward.

 

And MXR I rank up there with Brodul, and other mod showcasers/reviewers. In fact his videos have shown me to mods I actually like and downloaded and use in my saves. Mods that not even Brodul has showcased. And second, mod showcasers/reviewers, don't need a creator's permission. Movie reviewers will either pay to see the movie, or gotten a legal version of the movie to review. Game reviewers either own the game in question, or were in some cases, given a free early copy to review. As long as said reviewer gets a product the legitimate way, then said product, even mods, can be reviewed. Reviewers like MXR don't make money off the mods themselves. They make money off of ad revenue which is dependent on viewers. So he was not making money off that mod authors mod or any mod authors mod. And yes, it does fall under fair use. If someone is that self conscious about their mods being reviewed, then they really have no business even uploading their mod for others to use. Heck I could goto the local wal-mart, buy say... a vacuum cleaner and use it, then post up my thoughts anywhere on the internet, reviewing said vacuum.

 

Will be honest here. People like the one that false flagged MXR, not only get a negative spotlight shined on themselves, but if allowed to remain within the modding community, could well hurt Nexus in the long run. I myself, will continue watching MXR's videos. He's pointed me to many excellent, obscure mods I never would of found otherwise. Not to mention he is quite funny at times in his reviews. But I have a feeling he will also be avoiding that person that striked his channel as well. Damage is done, and nothing can be done about it now. But this talk about a popup to be added by a few modders aka PULP, any mods I find that has that, will instantly be removed from my load order and the author will find themselves on my blacklist as well. And I know I am not alone in that stance either. Spoken with many folks when I read about that little nugget. No one would use such mods, no matter how awesome they might look.

[AGreatWeight]

I am going to give my own feedback on this whole situation. The mod in question, used assets belonging to other mod authors. MXR showcased the mod, even gave it decent praise. But the creator launched a false attack on his channel which did give him a strike. No other mod creator ever had issues with their mod being showed off. But this one did. And her takedown of said mod, disabling commenting on her other videos and even feedback, suggest she had something to hide. I'm more than willing to bet, she probably used someone else's mod without permission and this whole situation was her trying to take eyes off her mod, but in the end, it shined a bad spotlight on her instead.

 

 

Yes, the mod in question used assets from other mods. However, it used those assets with full permission from the original authors, at least one of which stated in their permissions that the mod was not to be used in any monetary form (Youtube qualifies as thus) If you do some research of your own, you'll see that this is the case, and that the mod author of the market mod had permissions etc. Again, we have another uninformed user with a one-sided opinion of this situation getting it completely wrong.

There was no false attack as you seem to believe, MXR had plenty of opportunity to abide by the T.O.S. of the mod (that he'd agreed to by downloading and installing the mod in the first place) and remove that content from his video, but each time dug his heels in the ground, rather than re-edit a video, leaving the mod author little choice but to proceed with legal action. The end result of this, it was finally settled out of court, he removed the entire video (rather than simply re-edit/re-upload it which was an option he had, but choose to pick the nuclear option instead for reasons he has never been forthcoming with)

Tweeting about it (and referencing it in the beginning of one of his subsequent videos) did not help matters, as he blatantly misrepresented the situation and ommited certain facts about what was happening, which has had the effect of painting the mod author in a bad light, encouraging widescale speculation, masses of abuse directed at the author in question, and conducted the false narrative that this is a binary situation where a bad mod author screws over a good youtube persona. The mod author chose to take down her mod/comments etc due to the utter vitriol spewed at her from idiotic users who've been duped with a one-sided presentation of what has happened. Because surely their lord and saviour can't be in the wrong, so it must be all the mod authors fault! There is much more to this event unfolding than MXR would have you all believe.

 

 

I know for a fact, there's other videos on youtube, that showcase her mod that have gotten no strikes. And it was through the other videos I found her name and the first thing I did was come on Nexus, goto her channel and blacklisted her. I will never download a mod by someone that goes after someone for what I view, are petty reasons. If she had permission from the other mod authors that she included in her mod, which makes her mod not copyrightable, as it was 90% not original content she created, then seems to me them mod authors she had permission from, would have came out and said "yeah she has my permission to include my mod in hers". Too much shadyness for my taste. I will never see a single mod she creates from this time forward.

 

 

These other videos you mention may have fallen through the cracks, the author had contacted numerous other youtubers asking them to remove/edit out her content from their videos. They complied without any fuss, MXR was the only youtuber that was contacted that ignored the request. That you found the mod author's name, and then proceeded to come to the Nexus to blacklist her seems pretty childish. It has absolutely nothing to do with you, although your free to do that. However, I don't think the mod author will be losing any sleep over that.

You also show a fundamental lack of knowledge when it comes to copyright, as how you describe it isn't how it actually works (yes, it has dependancies, but that doesn't negate that it is still copyrighted work) It's also an assumption to believe that the authors of the content that the Market mod makes use of would be vocally dismissive... if anything, they've likely kept quiet as they don't want to get involved in this scenario, which when you consider how much misinformation etc has spread about it, can't say I'm at all surprised that they give it a wide berth)

Your perspective is clearly skewed towards the mod author being mean against a helpless innocent youtuber, rather than seeing this for what it actually is.

 

And MXR I rank up there with Brodul, and other mod showcasers/reviewers. In fact his videos have shown me to mods I actually like and downloaded and use in my saves. Mods that not even Brodul has showcased. And second, mod showcasers/reviewers, don't need a creator's permission. Movie reviewers will either pay to see the movie, or gotten a legal version of the movie to review. Game reviewers either own the game in question, or were in some cases, given a free early copy to review. As long as said reviewer gets a product the legitimate way, then said product, even mods, can be reviewed. Reviewers like MXR don't make money off the mods themselves. They make money off of ad revenue which is dependent on viewers. So he was not making money off that mod authors mod or any mod authors mod. And yes, it does fall under fair use. If someone is that self conscious about their mods being reviewed, then they really have no business even uploading their mod for others to use. Heck I could goto the local wal-mart, buy say... a vacuum cleaner and use it, then post up my thoughts anywhere on the internet, reviewing said vacuum.

 

 

Unless a mod author specifically states on the mod description page, read-me files, fomod installer etc that this is not allowed. By installing and using the mod, you are agreeing to consent to these terms and conditions as stated by the author of the work. This clearly puts MXR in breach of that agreement when he uploaded a youtube video containing the mod. Perhaps youtubers should get permission first? At the very least, contact the mod author and explain that they are making a video of the mod. That would be polite and respectful, initially opening up a dialogue between mod reviewer/youtube person and mod author. It's a fallacy to believe that every mod author wants their work to be showcased in this way, and an assumption that all mod authors are alike or have the same motivations to create what they create. There is statistical data pertaining to the Nexus that shows unequivically that youtube reviews do not translate to increased traffic to the Nexus - this information comes directly from the owner of the Nexus themselves, therefore the often-cited positive effect they have on bringing attention or focus to mods is factually incorrect. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of mod reviewers on youtube, choose to shine the spotlight on mods that are already fairly well known and have hit the hotfiles. MXR is not one of a tiny minority of mod reviewers that actually showcase obscure mods... and let's get one thing straight, without mods MXR wouldn't be where he is today. Him and other youtubers of his ilk are entirely dependant on mod authors, as it's the content that the latter creates, that the former uses for their videos. Not to mention that MXR himself has downloaded between 3000-4000 mods via Nexus, and yet has only actually endorsed 2. Yes, you read that right. Bearing in mind all the content that he has reviewed, he's only given endorsements to two mods. No lie (unless he's suddenly gone on an endorsement rampage since last week)

 

Will be honest here. People like the one that false flagged MXR, not only get a negative spotlight shined on themselves, but if allowed to remain within the modding community, could well hurt Nexus in the long run. I myself, will continue watching MXR's videos. He's pointed me to many excellent, obscure mods I never would have found otherwise. Not to mention he is quite funny at times in his reviews. But I have a feeling he will also be avoiding that person that striked his channel as well. Damage is done, and nothing can be done about it now. But this talk about a popup to be added by a few modders aka PULP, any mods I find that has that, will instantly be removed from my load order and the author will find themselves on my blacklist as well. And I know I am not alone in that stance either. Spoken with many folks when I read about that little nugget. No one would use such mods, no matter how awesome they might look.

 

So are you suggesting that the mod author in question be removed from the Nexus or something? Because frankly, that's not going to happen. You say that their actions could well hurt the Nexus, clearly not true. There's no evidence for that whatsoever, just your wild speculation. I'm not going to discuss PULP, as that is a completely different topic (although at it's core, it is about the same thing. Mod authors asserting their rights over their mods/content that they create)

 

edit-

or do you believe that mod authors have (or should have) no rights?

Edited April 3, 2017 by AGreatWeight

[Nilanius]

But as I said, they aren't profiting off the mods, youtube doesn't work that way. They get paid off ads shown which requires viewer counts. It just happens he is showing off peoples works and giving them a good spotlight. It's basically free advertising for the mod author, while the reviewer gets paid from ad revenue that is on every video on youtube which requires viewers to see said ads. Advertisers don't care what the video content is, only viewers seeing the ads and in exchange, they pay the video creator. So that isn't making a profit off someone's creation. There's game reviewers and movie reviewers that work in the same manner. They show off a bit of the product they are reviewing, give their thoughts and get paid for advertisements viewed. It again, falls under fair use, and they don't need the movie or game makers permission to give thoughts on the product they got legitimately. I really think you were missing that entire point.

 

But I will make it simpler:

 

Steven Spielberg makes a hit sci fi movie. It goes to theaters and makes money for him and his staff and actors that made the movie

Said movie eventually moves to DVD and Blueray

Some random guy buys the movie decides to do a youtube review

Random guy makes ad revenue for the video but not the content of the video. Spielberg and all associated with the movie get basically free advertising for their movie as a result of the movie.

Random guy made no money off spielberg, did not cut into the films profits one bit, unless it was a negative review, but viewers are entitled to come to their own decision on that.

 

It's the same with mod reviews. They aren't being paid for the mods they are being paid for the ads that show before the video starts and/or any banner that pops up in the middle of the video. So people like MXR are not profiting off peoples work. That profit comes from a completely unrelated part of the video. MXR, Brodul, and other reviewers in this case, do not need permission to give thoughts and opinions about someone else's work. So yeah in this case, said mod author brought a bad spotlight on herself. No one else's fault but hers. I don't blame MXR for giving the reason why video 220 was missing. All it did was show me who I never want to get mods from no and on into the future. You can call it childish, but if I disagree with a companies behavior, it's my legal right to boycott them. And in the case of this mod author, the behavior shown, I felt was wrong, and thus I have no interest in their products no more. I could care less if it doesn't bother them or not. But I know I am not the only one that has blacklisted her mods.

 

As is the last line about the random guy, this mod author had a decent review of her mod. She decided to go after a reviewer much like many review channels had been hit by companies for even showing a second of their film/show/music. And a lot of people are sick of companies pulling such bogus flags on reviewers. Some DMCA flags I admit are justified, like the channels that try linking to pirated copies of their products, or show so much of the product that it would be pointless to even get said product. But when it comes to reviewers who show only minor clips and give their thoughts on products much like MXR, who also in his videos, links to where you can get said mods legitly, it makes no sense to go so hostile as they aren't making money on peoples works, only ad revenue which is unrelated to the products being showcased.

[AGreatWeight]

I wonder why it is so difficult for people to wrap their head around the fact that mod reviewers do profit from mods. Mods are the subject of said youtubers work.

Sure, advertisers pay youtubers for their content, which is based on view counts etc, but mods are what the content is based upon. No mods, no youtube reviews, which ultimately means that people like MXR do profit from mods, irrespective of that profit being made indirectly.

Without the work that mod authors make, MXR wouldn't be where he is now.

[Nilanius]

But that's also like saying someone reviewing ghostbusters 2016 to say how terrible a movie it is, is profiting off said movie because they give thoughts and opinions on the movie. Critics is still critics. You say it is difficult for people to wrap their heads around mod reviewers profiting off mods, but is it so hard to wrap your head around the fact that there is no profits made from the mods themselves. Only ads that are unrelated to the mods are being profited. All reviewers are doing is giving thoughts and opinions on a product. Something critics have been doing for centuries since reviewing was first invented. What you are suggest also, is that sites that have ads on them but happen to review a wide range of things like rotten tomatoes, profits off of other peoples work. They don't. They profit off of ad revenue and donations.

 

No this takedown was nothing more than someone claiming a reviewer was profiting off their mod, which they were not. And I still maintain, if you don't want people reviewing your creation, then don't put your creation out to the public for download. Because there will always be people who will review a product, be it video, website, blog or whatever. And reviewing, weather mod authors like it or not, is protected under the united states first amendment, hence the term fair use. So again, don't want the mod reviewed, then don't offer it to the public. It really is that simple. Out of all the mod authors on the nexus, that one was the only one to ever cause an uproar and shine a spotlight on herself. A negative one at that. MXR was in the right in not taking it down because it is under fair use. Mod was put out to the public freely. If the mod author didn't want it reviewed, then it should never of been put out to the public because people will review. Even talking about a mod amongst friends and giving ones own personal opinion is considered a review.

 

All this situation has done though is make people like MXR and I am sure even Brodul will be avoiding that persons mod as well, because once someone shows unjustified hostility where no other mod author had done so, then that is a stain that cannot be undone. And I still maintain, there has to be some shady thing in the background going on, if someone doesn't want free public advertisement of their mod they put on a site that is open to the public.Some reason they don't want their mod to be in any kind of spotlight. Especially a good spotlight, because MXR had nothing bad to say about that mod at all. He even said it was a neat idea. And lots of people find mods they otherwise would not know about through videos by MXR and other reviewers. I would never of known about for example, tactical valtheim or skyrim romance mod without MXR.

 

Not gonna argue though. Just saying, mod authors that shine a negative spotlight on themselves, reap what they sow. I would not of harassed her, or anything of the such. However given what's been done with what I consider, an unjustifiable flagging, she would of ended up on my blacklist anyways. All this whole situation has done, which, hands down, was started NOT by MXR, but by that single author, had caused a rift in the modding community.

 

The flagging would of made sense, if the video pointed to that mod, with a different author's name on it than the actual creator and pointed to a site not affiliated with the original author. Mod theft is definitely unjustified and wrong, and such thieves also would be on the blacklist with me. So while you might not agree with me, I feel the one in the wrong is the mod author, and not MXR. In fact, under fair use, MXR could easily fight the takedown, and get that strike taken off his channel easily if he fought it. Because it does fall under fair use. Will he? It's doubtful, because he doesn't make that much off of his youtube videos. But it will mean amongst reviewers, that particular mod author will be avoided by every top reviewer from here on out, and mod users such as myself, will also not download her mods. So she didn't want her mods to have any popularity, well in this case, she succeeded. Unfortunate, but this action will effect how many people will download any other mod she makes. If she wanted donations, well that is a significant chunk of the userbase, that wont be doing that for her either. Her loss I say.

[AGreatWeight]

A youtuber who creates mod reviews and monetises said reviews is profiting off the content of their video/s; in this case mods. Advertisers only pay the youtuber because their content is consumed by a specific number of viewers, which makes it attractive to said advertisers.

How did the number of viewers reach a point where advertisers deemed it worthy to sell their wares on the videos? Because of the content, and this is something that cannot be argued about. In this case, the content is mods. There's an obvious correlation that youtubers like MXR are entirely dependant on mods to make their money.

As stated previously, no mods = no youtube mod reviewers + no content to review (or in this case exploit)

 

Incorrect, the takedown was due to MXR refusing to remove content from a video he made that breached the T.O.S. that he agreed to when he downloaded/unstalled the mod in the first place (Other youtubers that were asked complied with no fuss, no problem & removed their videos containing footage of the mod. He did not) You seem to show a lot of empathy for the youtuber, and barely any for the modder; in fact non for the mod authors rights, which were violated by the youtuber.

Let's be clear, 'fair use' is not a right under American law, it can be used as a defense only, but the burden of proof that something falls under 'fair use' rests entirely on the defendant. They have to prove that something is 'fair use', and it's not straightforward. In this case, it was settled out of court because MXR likely realized that any attempt to use 'fair use' as a defense wouldn't work, as it could be easily proved that he had, in fact, breached the T.O.S. laid down by the mod author (in their mod description, read-me file, fomod installer etc) when he downloaded/installed the mod.

Mod authors generally aren't against mod reviews (which negates your "don't want it reviewed then don't upload/share it" attitude) but a significant number are against the monetization of these reviews.

I have to add that your statement regarding the First Amendment is also blatantly incorrect when referring to this situation. The First Amendment establishes protections in place regarding Freedom of the press and Freedom of speech from government interference.

The right to Freedom of speech does not supercede the rights of authors over their works (i.e. copyright)

Bethesda have clearly stated, in the Creation Kit EULA, and also over on Bethesda.net, that mod authors own their mods (below is quoted directly from the Fallout 4 Creation Kit EULA - Section 2)

 

2. GAME MODS; OWNERSHIP AND LICENSE TO ZENIMAX

A. Ownership. As between You and ZeniMax, You are the owner of Your Game Mods and all intellectual property rights therein, subject to the licenses You grant to ZeniMax in this Agreement.

 

Your speculation about 'some shady thing in the background' regarding the mod is completely groundless, though I've seen that accusation flung around a lot - this tends to be from those who don't understand why a mod author would not want their mod to appear in a youtube video (these people have the mistaken belief that all mod authors crave attention for their work, rather than coming to grips with the possibility that most mod authors make mods foremost for themselves, rather than for internet fame or something)

It's almost like you want that to be the case, rather than simply accepting the fact that one of the authors whose work the mod used (with consent) state themselves in the permissions tab for their mod that they do not want the mod to be used in any monetary fashion whatsoever. The mod author of the market mod respected the wishes of the other mod author.

 

The mod author didn't shine a negative spotlight on themselves, it is mod users (who are outraged that a mod author would actually have the nerve to stand up for their rights) and MXR fans (utterly blinded by their loyalty to their chosen youtube celebrity) who have shone a negative spotlight on the mod author. Generally the same people who mistakenly think that mod authors don't own their work (mods)

 

Yes, MXR started this. He chose to ignore a reasonable & justified request to remove some content from his video - emphasis on the word some. In his own video, he stated to his fans, that the mod author was right. If the mod author was actually in the wrong, he would have said so & defended himself in court, but he didn't. Because he knew he wouldn't win, because he knew he was in the wrong (however begrudgingly he might know it)

All that this has done is shine the spotlight on something that has been bubbling up under the surface for quite some time now, starting from the Paid Mods disaster (thanks Valve!) and especially since the whole mod theft fiasco on Bethesda.net.

The huge rift between those who either don't understand or are unwilling to acknowledge mod authors rights, and those who do understand, respect & fight for mod authors rights.

 

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of mod creators recieve barely any donations.

 

Oh, and as a fan of MXR's channel/s, I'd have thought that you'd be aware of the fact that MXR has made enough money from his youtube channels to actually buy his own property. He made a video about it. If you can afford to buy your own property, you can afford to defend yourself in court.

[Nilanius]

Since you still don't really understand what fair use is, saying it is only a "defense" perhaps you should read this?

 

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

 

and will quote the biggest point and even bold and underline the criteria of the right of fair use MXR's video falls under:

 

"the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright." Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."

 

Under fair use, every single person who downloads a mod from Nexus, has a right to review, criticize and comment on said mod. It is an expressly authorized right. A right the mod author infringed upon and MXR could fight, if he had the money to do so. So in this case, the one in the wrong in this case, is not MXR, but the mod author herself. If she doesn't want her mods reviewed, then she should NOT put them up for public use, because the public an, and will, comment and even criticize their work. As he only showed small snipets of the mod, which were not 100% hers since it used Bethesda's assets, and included works of other mod authors, the idea sure may be hers, but I am sure there's other mods that do exactly the same thing the floating market did, only better. That floating market would be nothing, without the game it was made for, and would be nothing without the use of other peoples mods.

 

Regardless, he wasn't profiting off the mods themselves, he was commenting on the mods, and even criticizing the mods. Something reviewers are protected under as a freedom of the press. As the article pointed out, under the united states, fair use is a right, and a protected one. It's in there to protect people reviewing stuff. And most reviewers, even game reviewers, movie reviewers, etc, make money off the adds. Your arguement says that without the mods, the channel would be nothing. Without movies, reviewers would be nothing, and without the movies, there would be no one to see them, and no money to be made by the film makers. It's a stupid argument and not one that would be taken seriously in even a court of law. Every single person who visits nexus, downloads a mod, has a right to comment and criticize the mod outside of nexus. Does not matter the platform, doesn't matter if someone makes ad revenue off banners on their sites, on videos, or any multimedia, fair use will always apply on commentary and criticism of copyrighted works. It is a protected right, no ifs, ands, or buts. Mod Author was in the wrong 100%. And she deserves to be on peoples blacklists imho. Everyone I've spoken to about this situation, all agree, they would never download a mod from such a mod author.