Reneer Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 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.A review may be public scrutiny, as you say, but using fair use as a defense isn't just whether the infringement fits into a particular category of infringement or not. There are four factors that need to be looked over by a judge when someone tries to invoke fair use as a defense: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;2. The nature of the copyrighted work;3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.(source: Wikipedia) As you can see, there are multiple factors where MxR, as an example, would likely not be able to get away with a fair use defense. He's commercializing his use of the copyrighted work, often using a significant portion of the work (such as displaying an entire armor mod, etc), and his "unique" style of presenting may in fact have a negative impact upon the potential market for the work, even though the work itself is free. All the CRFA does is make sure that companies cannot, in their contracts / terms of service, prohibit, punish or penalize people who review their products / services. It says nothing about whether a company can or cannot sue for copyright infringement and whether they are right or wrong for doing so. Edited December 16, 2017 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGreatWeight Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 A piece of the puzzle that you're missing regarding this particular instance with MxR; the mod author specifically stated in their permissions tab/mod description/read-me file that the mod was not, under any circumstances, to be reviewed on Youtube if said review was monetized. I think it may have even been included in the fomod. That condition was explicitly stated as part of the TOS of downloading/installing/using the mod; to the best of my knowledge, the mod author included this condition as it was something that was stated as a prerequisite by one of the mod authors whose work she used in her mod (her mod used content from several different authors, and any conditions they laid down regarding usage of their mods/content, she had to include in hers)By downloading/installing/using the mod, MxR was agreeing to be bound by that condition, as well as any others in the TOS for that mod. By going ahead and reviewing it in a monetized youtube video, he was blatantly violating the TOS of that mod, that he'd previously agreed to by downloading/installing/using it - regardless of whether he actually read that TOS or not.You won't find mention of that in any of his youtube videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosstieger Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 A piece of the puzzle that you're missing regarding this particular instance with MxR; the mod author specifically stated in their permissions tab/mod description/read-me file that the mod was not, under any circumstances, to be reviewed on Youtube if said review was monetized. I think it may have even been included in the fomod. That condition was explicitly stated as part of the TOS of downloading/installing/using the mod; to the best of my knowledge, the mod author included this condition as it was something that was stated as a prerequisite by one of the mod authors whose work she used in her mod (her mod used content from several different authors, and any conditions they laid down regarding usage of their mods/content, she had to include in hers)By downloading/installing/using the mod, MxR was agreeing to be bound by that condition, as well as any others in the TOS for that mod. By going ahead and reviewing it in a monetized youtube video, he was blatantly violating the TOS of that mod, that he'd previously agreed to by downloading/installing/using it - regardless of whether he actually read that TOS or not.You won't find mention of that in any of his youtube videos. That's one thing that I never understood. Now, I'm from Germany so I can only see it through the "German-law-goggles". According to the permission tab and the eula displayed through the fomod, you are apparently not allowed to say you opinion about the product on a public place in form of a review? Did I get this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGreatWeight Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) You missed one vital aspect - monetizationThe mod author wasn't against reviews of her mod, as long as those reviews were not monetized. Edited December 16, 2017 by AGreatWeight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosstieger Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Okay... doesn't change a whole lot about my opinion and understanding of the German law. Sure, in Germany we do make a difference between making money with content and not. But it doesn't change what content you are allowed to produce. So the restriction would not take effect at all. On other note. The implementation of the eula doesn't make a lot of sense either. You never HAVE TO agree to it. Download it manually, unzip it, put the files in the data directory - done. Never agreed to anything. At least in Germany any installation or download process needs to be terminated if you don't agree to the eula. And since you can't "terminate" the manual installation of loose files you shouldn't even be able to download the file in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yulliah Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 This thing with moddrop, we had it with fanfiction as well... Some people decided to create a site where you could post fanfiction other people created in PDF downloaded from AO3 to share with ones friends...NO, just NO...I don't care if it's a fanfiction or one of the mods I created... I hold the right to decide where I want to share those mods... And I also want the right to pull them if I no longer want to share them, or want to update them or whatever!I create something, spending hours on it! It's mine! If you want to share my mod with your friends, YOU CAN SEND THEM A LINK! YOU DO NOT REUPLOAD IT TO ANOTHER WEBSITE AND/OR APP!!!!!Shame on you, MXR... I really do like your videos and mod reviews, and I couldn't care less if you review one of my mods and get money for that review... But this whole Moddrop thing is crossing a big fat line by miles... And I do not care about the monitization... But you should respect the wishes of the mod authors... If they don't want to be reviewed in monitized video's, don't review them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer2200 Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 Looking through MXR videos for fallout only one has moddrop. I will say with some of the videos there are links to the mods and other there aren't. I will say this with all of his reviews he has the mod author's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) Okay... doesn't change a whole lot about my opinion and understanding of the German law. Sure, in Germany we do make a difference between making money with content and not. But it doesn't change what content you are allowed to produce. So the restriction would not take effect at all. It's the exact same thing as what Bethesda asks of mod authors in the CK EULA, namely that mod authors cannot sell their creations. So a mod author in turn can state in their terms of use that users of the work cannot use the mod for commercial use / monetary gain, which would allow reviews but prohibit monetization. Edited December 17, 2017 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosstieger Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 Okay... doesn't change a whole lot about my opinion and understanding of the German law. Sure, in Germany we do make a difference between making money with content and not. But it doesn't change what content you are allowed to produce. So the restriction would not take effect at all.It's the exact same thing as what Bethesda asks of mod authors in the CK EULA, namely that mod authors cannot sell their creations. So a mod author in turn can state in their terms of use that users of the work cannot use the mod for commercial use / monetary gain, which would allow reviews but prohibit monetization. Sure, makes sense. It's just that the implementation of said eula is not sufficient and therefor invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlp Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Say's who ? The internet lawyers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts