Some concerns about the community

[TheVampireDante]

Oh look, two of my comments proving everyone wrong on their delusional interpretation of fair use have been deleted, seems like the mods clearly support one side of this discussion over the other.

 

Looking at the posts, I believe it was more to do with your aggressive style of posting than anything else.

[Deleted82156User]

Oh look, two of my comments proving everyone wrong on their delusional interpretation of fair use have been deleted, seems like the mods clearly support one side of this discussion over the other.

 

I saw those two posts...they were outright incredibly rude and aggressive towards a particular person (the mod author involved in this with Mxr) rather then adding anything constructive to the discussion. So you are not fooling anyone here with your accusations that the staff support one side of the issue.

 

You have provided nothing solid to prove your stance, on the contrary you have yet to provide any kind of evidence that proves that Fair Use is something that can be applied willy nilly to whomever wants it and stands legally in that application, and NOT something that can only be defined by a court in each case and therefore is not a valid argument until proven in court.

 

You have yet to acknowledge the fact that Mxr ignored the terms of use on the mod and that it was on this that he was challenged and backed down.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Guest

[RGMage2]

Oh look, two of my comments proving everyone wrong on their delusional interpretation of fair use have been deleted, seems like the mods clearly support one side of this discussion over the other.

My own post telling you you were barking up the wrong tree because the court case had nothing to do with fair use and instead was about violating terms of use was also deleted. So IMO the moderating was even-handed.

[Graybark]

 

 

 

 

-snip-

 

Reread what my post actually says, where exactly did I state that "failing one makes something instantly not fair use"?

 

Read your post again. That is exactly, literally what you are saying.

 

 

You (and Mator) are misinterpreting a specific part of what I wrote, based on semantics. Maybe that is my fault for not being concise enough, or perhaps you're both just choosing to interpret it that way - that question arises primarily because of Mator's beliefs when it comes to mod authors asserting their rights.

To clarify, I was not stating that failing the first requirement would automatically mean that the video would fail them all and not fall under fair use.

So let's be clear. Because of the commercialization of the video, it would be very difficult to meet the first requirement of fair use (note that I don't say impossible) and it would likely fail to be met.*

Combined with the fact that the video is unequivocally in breach of the TOS/TOU (of the mod) that MXR initially agreed to when he downloaded & installed the mod, adds more weight to the first requirement not being met, as it (the video) infringes on the copyright of the mod.

Said infringement will also have an effect on the outcome of failure/success to meet the criteria of the other requirements (to one extent or another)

*bearing in mind that all cases relating to fair use are held on a case by case basis.

 

 

I maintain that that is exactly what you posted, and that there was no ambiguity in it (4 requirements to be fulfilled, one 'blatantly' failed). If that is not what you meant, then that's even better. Don't want to argue semantics. I would appreciate it if you did not automatically assign a label to me (Team Mator?), and took what I write at face-value. I have seen similar discussions where people are called trolls, stupid etc. for not seeing their point of view. I may be hypersensitive because I am used to an environment where cuss words and rudeness are not seen, but this looks pretty bad to me. People just ganging up on someone because they have a different opinion (not talking about Mator here).

[DoctaSax]

Except that I was and am talking about this community's adherence to mod permissions, that is NOT 'newfangled', not the filing of DCMAs. Youtubers are mod users and they are NOT exempt from adhering to mod permissions. As yet you have provided no actual argument to support your points otherwise other then you don't think it should be.

 

You are entitled to your stance on your permissions regarding your work. It would be nice if you allowed other people to have their own views on what they want to do with their own work.

I merely mentioned my own policies to help explain where I'm coming from in thinking disallowing reviews of your mod is silly. There's no attempt at conversion or anything, just one at explanation.

 

My argument is and was that I think it's a case of fair use. I'm not interested in the latent resentments of everyone involved or the specifics of who said what to who at any given time, only the principle of the thing. Let's at least agree that it either is or isn't fair use, and we don't know without a court ruling. So all we can do is offer opinions on that. You insist that fair use can't be assumed until proven in court, which is obviously true if you're only interested in a definitive answer. However, there are lots of reviews out there of just about anything that never were challenged in court, so does that make all of them illegal until they are challenged and cleared? Seems a tad unwieldy to expect that nobody reviews anything until they went to court for the right to do so. Reviews are made all the time, based on the assumption that they're covered by fair use. True, it remains an assumption for each of them until challenged and cleared in court, but not a preposterous one.

 

 

You obviously don't do so at your own risk, but how this played out doesn't say anything about the legality of either side's actions.

On the contrary it has revealed a lot. For one that Youtube will respect a DMCA from a modder (after being shown proof of ownership). Read the threads in the mod author forum for detailed information on all of this, all your assumptions are already answered and where relevant disproven there.

 

I don't see how youtube's automated systems ruling in favor of the modder actually says anything about YT mod reviews legally falling under fair use or not.

And no, I haven't yet reached the magical download count threshold here, so until I can see my assumptions disproven with my own eyes, I'll consider them as valid as anyone else's.

 

So let's be clear. Because of the commercialization of the video, it would be very difficult to meet the first requirement of fair use (note that I don't say impossible) and it would likely fail to be met.*

Combined with the fact that the video is unequivocally in breach of the TOS/TOU (of the mod) that MXR initially agreed to when he downloaded & installed the mod, adds more weight to the first requirement not being met, as it (the video) infringes on the copyright of the mod.

Said infringement will also have an effect on the outcome of failure/success to meet the criteria of the other requirements (to one extent or another)

*bearing in mind that all cases relating to fair use are held on a case by case basis.

Fair use has been upheld in cases of commercial use before. As far as I can tell the interpretation of the first requirement not only focuses on the commercial nature but also on whether the use is transformative, and whether it falls under the preamble's listing of what fair use is meant for, including "criticism, comment, news reporting". So, it being a review would really speak in its favor, offsetting the impact of the commercial nature of the use to an extent. I also don't see how it affects the other three criteria.

 

I don't think it really matters to the court whether this use was explicitly denied in the mod's permission page either. When it comes to copyright, after all, any use is by definition denied until given permission. Which again brings up the point that if some people call it copyright infringement because the right to review it was specifically denied, they should really call any and all YT mod reviews a copyright infringement because explicit permission to review mods is hardly ever given. The same goes for books, movies, games and anything else too, of course, yet people still make reviews about everything.

[Deleted82156User]

 

I merely mentioned my own policies to help explain where I'm coming from in thinking disallowing reviews of your mod is silly.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. My point was that the use of the word 'silly' was somewhat rude. This community is made up of many different people with different ideas and they are entitled to those ideas and opinions when it comes to their work, without being called 'silly' for it, by those who disagree.

 

And no, I haven't yet reached the magical download count threshold here

 

 

I apologize, I looked through your mods and assumed that you had access. Well if you don't now, you will soon I am sure. :smile:

 

My argument is and was that I think it's a case of fair use. I'm not interested in the latent resentments of everyone involved or the specifics of who said what to who at any given time, only the principle of the thing. Let's at least agree that it either is or isn't fair use, and we don't know without a court ruling.

 

 

You can 'principle' all you like, but only a court of law can decide whether or not it is 'Fair Use'. My point was to inform that the case was not as Mxr is portraying it, it is about violating the permissions given with the mod.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Guest

[JoyTrooper]

 

Oh look, two of my comments proving everyone wrong on their delusional interpretation of fair use have been deleted, seems like the mods clearly support one side of this discussion over the other.

 

Looking at the posts, I believe it was more to do with your aggressive style of posting than anything else.

 

 

My comment was removed too! These moderators just can't pick a side, can they? It's almost as if comments get deleted simply for being offensive...

 

Nah, that can't be it. Must be because of some Nexus conspiracy, the deletion of my offensive comment proves it.

[Graybark]

You are entitled to your opinion. My point was that the use of the word 'silly' was somewhat rude. This community is made up of many different people with different ideas and they are entitled to those ideas and opinions when it comes to their work, without being called 'silly' for it, by those who disagree.

 

Nobody is entitled (has the right) to not being called silly as calling someone silly for something or calling an idea silly is in itself an opinion freely expressed. Other than that, I agree that calling someone or someone's idea silly is not a good thing. I would not do it either. I have seen many users on your side of the argument here (you being the notable exception) belittling others, calling them trolls or stupid (in a more subtle manner) for expressing their opinions, however. As you said, such name-calling and belittling is out of bounds.

 

Edit: I am just trying to reach out here, by the way, as I think that the manner in which these things are discussed is really detrimental to the cohesion of the community. I am personally on the fence on some of the things being discussed. I realize that mod authors with a larger user baser have had to deal with a lot of this but I think it is sometimes helpful to look at it from someone's perspective who has not been exposed to this and has genuine concerns (no matter how unfounded).

Edited April 9, 2017 by ArtaiosGreybark

[Hisu]

Reminds me of drama often sparking up in the furry community: "oh noes, %username% used my character's likeness, SUE THE HERETIC!".

In my opinion, Nexus should add a few lines to its ToS, declaring all mods published here released into the public domain de jure and internally enforcing only two sensible rights of a mod author:

a) To be credited for their work

and

b) To have the deciding vote in whether their creation can be used as a part of a commercial product

— so that outside those two issues, public domain rule would apply in any disputed case.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Hisu

[Perraine]

Just because something isn't illegal today, doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. And only if the law is NOT made retrospective can you be considered guilt free.

 

By the same token, a quick Google or Youtube search will show you dozens if not hundreds of laws that are still in effect, even though in some cases they haven't been prosecuted in years, decades or even millennia, and though in today's society some of them may appear to be outright draconian, or in conflict with current moral standards, it doesn't make those laws any less valid or enforceable if the governing body so chose.

 

As far as reviews, and mod "showcases", your assumption is actually correct. In many cases (likely most) Breech of Copyright could be declared on that content by the copyright holder. In most cases, the copyright holder does not pursue the case, for their own reasons, but that does NOT mean that they couldn't if they wished. And as we have seen, some companies can and will enforce their rights. In those cases only a court of law can decide one way or the other. (and please do not start quoting previous cases, because there have been as many "for" as there are "against" so it's completely pointless and unhelpful)

 

Unfortunately due to the nature of the current "free" modding community, and also the apparent "ambivalence" some companies have to this issue, it has created a TOTALLY UNFOUNDED AND UNREALISTIC sense of "entitlement" among the public. One only needs to read some of the comments left by mod users on many, MANY mods to know that this sense of entitlement is pervasive and in many cases antagonistic.

 

It's somewhat unfortunate but also inevitable that this situation has come to light, but we may now be in a position to finally start coming to a consensus. However it must be noted that the "mod user" is the one who must make the sacrifices here, the onus is purely and totally on them and them alone. They are "entitled' to NOTHING, if they wish to continue to receive free mods for their games, then they are the ones who need to start building these bridges.

 

I'm an "olde fart' so this may come as a surprise, but I was raised to "ask permission before taking anything", even if it was candy from a "free" jar on a shop counter. And I was also taught to say "Thank You" when given permission or say "okay" if denied it.

 

It's amazing how this entire situation could have been avoided in the past, currently and in the future, if people also behaved by those very simple standards.