MxR and ModDrop....

[AGreatWeight]

The kind of backlash that meant she was hit with a barrage of insults, abuse, death threats and general unpleasantness from MxR fanboys who didn't have a clue about exactly what happened; this lead to her being forced to close comments on her mods, as well as her PM due to the vitriol that was thrown her way - some users found themselves banned due to their inability to not attempt to contact the mod author to give her a piece of their mind.

A tale of the 'evil mod author bashing poor youtuber' narrative was popularized amongst a large number of his viewers.

MxR didn't help matters by discussing it in one of his videos (and either knowingly or ignorantly misinforming his viewers by not giving them the complete facts) which is what lead to the outrage and subsequent witch-hunt against the mod author.

Edited December 15, 2017 by AGreatWeight

[oblitoro]

Neither MxR, nor ModDrop, ask for permission to upload/review mods. They just do whatever they like, and wait for authors to file claims against them before they will actually remove anything. Neither is very honest either. MxR has been raked over the coals on this before.... (featuring a mod in one of his 'reviews' that the MA specifically stated they didn't want that..... MA won that round. But, not without backlash.)

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by oblitoro

[Reneer]

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.

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 that "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).

Edited December 15, 2017 by Reneer

[oblitoro]

"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.

[Reneer]

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?

Do your own research, perhaps? But I'll make it easy and list the rights a copyright holder has over their creation:

 

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

(source)

 

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. And, yes, mod authors hold the copyright to their created works.

 

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.

Anyone who reviews products on Amazon doesn't get paid. Anyone who reviewers stuff on Yelp doesn't get paid. Etc. Plus, Top Gear is loaned the cars from the car manufacturers themselves. So, in order for a car to be shown on Top Gear, the car manufacturer has to either give them the car to review or Top Gear has to buy the car outright. In that situation, the car manufacturer gains exposure and more sales by the review from Top Gear and Top Gear gets nice cars to review. But in the case of mod authors, we get nothing of value by people reviewing our mods. It's the same old "but you'll get paid in exposure" nonsense.

 

In pretty much every "review" situation, a company has to decide if the review is beneficial to them or not and whether it is worth it to go to court. For most companies reviews are benign because, even if they are negative, they are still exposure which will, potentially, have a positive impact on sales. But with free products, like mods, we don't get any increase in sales because our work is forced to be free of cost. So, in the end, mod reviewers get all the money and mod authors get nothing of value.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Reneer

[oblitoro]

"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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by oblitoro

[Reneer]

1. In no way shape or form does a 90 second video overview equate to the reproduction of a created work.

Correct.

 

2. A reviewer does not make 'new editions' or adaptations of what they are reviewing, they do not make derivative works defined by law.

Also correct.

 

3. In what way is a 90 second video overview infringe upon an authors right to distribute their creations? It doesn't.

True.

 

4. See 3.

 

5. See 3.

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.

 

No it doesn't. A mod authors right to display their work does not remove the right of the work to be posted for public scrutiny. They are not exclusive to each other.

There is no "right" for something to be posted for "public scrutiny". Nice try, though.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Reneer

[oblitoro]

 

1. In no way shape or form does a 90 second video overview equate to the reproduction of a created work.

Correct.

 

2. A reviewer does not make 'new editions' or adaptations of what they are reviewing, they do not make derivative works defined by law.

Also correct.

 

3. In what way is a 90 second video overview infringe upon an authors right to distribute their creations? It doesn't.

True.

 

4. See 3.

 

5. See 3.

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.

 

No it doesn't. A mod authors right to display their work does not remove the right of the work to be posted for public scrutiny. They are not exclusive to each other.

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.

[Reneer]

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.

No, a right to public scrutiny is not defined in the CRFA. You can read the text of the CRFA here if you'd like.

 

And as I said before, fair use is an affirmative defense. You can't just cry out "fair use!" when someone sues you for copyright infringement. It only comes into play after you're in court and before a judge. And the link I gave is actually quite relevant because you were the one to claim that displaying a copyrighted work in a video somehow wasn't an infringement on the rights of the copyright holder.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Reneer

[oblitoro]

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.