Is copyright striking mods ok? And is it even a good business practice?

[Morris_lee_9116]

Nintendo: "C O W A B U N G A  I T  I S"

[Pc6777]

if they force mods to be taken down, they will just move to torent sites, its a big waste of time for everyone, plus if anything aggressive legal action will give the mod more attention.

[JZStudios]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Yet the key wording here is ... "software license you purchased" ... if its not then my point stands.

As I said, "You're tinkering with their work with no permission, so that sums it up." Pretty clear and straight forward. 

...So then we're assuming the pirated the game? What's your point?

And I said that's completely wrong. Even clearer and more straightforward.

[Jaesop]

On 11/14/2021 at 1:06 AM, SansVarnic said:

That is it. You're tinkering with their work with no permission, so that sums it up.

It doesn't though. Many mods do not contain any of their copywritten work. Specifically, the reverse engineered GTA trilogy games contain nothing copywritten - if you want to use it, you as the end user need to provide it.

 

These takedowns are done not because T2 or anyone else thinks that they'd hold up in court, they simply know the mod creators can't afford to fight them in court. There is nothing good about that kind of behavior.

[Donut417]

19 hours ago, Pc6777 said:

if they force mods to be taken down, they will just move to torent sites, its a big waste of time for everyone, plus if anything aggressive legal action will give the mod more attention.

Until the Torrent sites get taken down. Some big ones have already had that happen. Also, with the ISP Cox loosing a judgment because media companies where sick of their customers pirating shit, I have a feeling ISP's in the US might be a bit more aggressive with fighting copyright infringement. Because to my understanding Cox was following the law, they were alerting users to copy right infringement and passing along the letters sent by the media companies. 

[tikker]

On 11/20/2021 at 6:01 PM, JZStudios said:

...So then we're assuming the pirated the game? What's your point?

And I said that's completely wrong. Even clearer and more straightforward.

From my perspective you bought, as you said, a license, which is to play the game. You didn't buy the game itself, you don't own any of the code, so unless that license grants you permission to modify the game, which EULAs typically don't, you technically aren't allowed to do that. Of course what EULAs define as "modifying the software" is often vague and whether modding falls under that can be debatable depending on the scope of the mod.

 

Now before you say EULAs can't be enforced (because they often only explicitely pop up after purchasing a game), I feel that can be a bit trickier in reality. Under Dutch law general terms of sale are legally valid if you are given the opportunity to review and agree to them before you purchase the good. The game EULA can be seen as such general terms of buying the game and e.g. Steam has the game's EULA up for reading on their store page, or a link to it.

 

The better solution would of course be to present you with a storefront pop up forcing you to (not) agree, and they are not the most visible, but technically they could be able to provide legal grounds, depending on your laws, if you try to argue that the buyer was able to read them and by buying the game implicitely agreed to said license agreement.

 

So is copyright striking mods ok? It's certainly not amicable of them towards their community, but laws (silly or not) likely technically give them grounds for it.

[JZStudios]

30 minutes ago, tikker said:

From my perspective you bought, as you said, a license, which is to play the game. You didn't buy the game itself, you don't own any of the code, so unless that license grants you permission to modify the game, which EULAs typically don't, you technically aren't allowed to do that. Of course what EULAs define as "modifying the software" is often vague and whether modding falls under that can be debatable depending on the scope of the mod.

 

Now before you say EULAs can't be enforced (because they often only explicitely pop up after purchasing a game), I feel that can be a bit trickier in reality. Under Dutch law general terms of sale are legally valid if you are given the opportunity to review and agree to them before you purchase the good. The game EULA can be seen as such general terms of buying the game and e.g. Steam has the game's EULA up for reading on their store page, or a link to it.

 

The better solution would of course be to present you with a storefront pop up forcing you to (not) agree, and they are not the most visible, but technically they could be able to provide legal grounds, depending on your laws, if you try to argue that the buyer was able to read them and by buying the game implicitely agreed to said license agreement.

 

So is copyright striking mods ok? It's certainly not amicable of them towards their community, but laws (silly or not) likely technically give them grounds for it.

You're perspective is irrelevant and incorrect. You purchased the license for your copy, and you have a legal right, backed by court cases, to do with it whatever you please. If you buy a DVD, you're 100% in your legal right to rip it to your computer and make your own edit.

 

EULA's legally don't mean shit until taken to court. They almost always have stuff in them that's illegal or otherwise dismissible. It's also been held true in court that expecting the layman to read and understand EULAs is unrealistic. They don't mean anything.

 

The fact is, you've purchased your license, you can do whatever you want with it for personal use. They only thing you can't do is redistribute it. R* and T2 have zero legal ground. The mods people are making are either their own work and creation, which R* and T2 legally can't do shit about, or it's very simple modified .ini files and the like.

 

The fact is they simply knew the "definitive edition" was dogshit and want people to buy the new product, and the only way to ensure they can't legally ignore it for something they may already own is to bully the little guys they know won't take them to court over fraudulent charges.

[tikker]

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

You're perspective is irrelevant and incorrect. You purchased the license for your copy, and you have a legal right, backed by court cases, to do with it whatever you please. If you buy a DVD, you're 100% in your legal right to rip it to your computer and make your own edit.

You can't do "whatever you please". That would mean distributing as well, which you can't. An illegally obtained home copy is also illegal, together with breaking the copy protection on the disk to make the copy. The home copy law is an annoying gray area. The license you bought has terms attached to it and you agreed to those terms upon buying it. You don't own a copy, you own a license to use that copy of the software (that's not just my perspective).

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

EULA's legally don't mean shit until taken to court. They almost always have stuff in them that's illegal or otherwise dismissible. It's also been held true in court that expecting the layman to read and understand EULAs is unrealistic. They don't mean anything.

Then why do people get upset when they are taken to court over it? Sounds like the usual "it's fine until it harms me" reasoning.

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The mods people are making are either their own work and creation, which R* and T2 legally can't do shit about, or it's very simple modified .ini files and the like.

Yes, which is why I said what those modifications in the licenses mean are their own debate.

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

personal use

Making the mod for yourself would indeed be personal use. Distributing mods is not personal use.

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The fact is, you've purchased your license, you can do whatever you want with it for personal use. They only thing you can't do is redistribute it. R* and T2 have zero legal ground. The mods people are making are either their own work and creation, which R* and T2 legally can't do shit about, or it's very simple modified .ini files and the like.

If you wilfully agree to a license that tells you you can't do X then you can't do X.

39 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The fact is they simply knew the "definitive edition" was dogshit and want people to buy the new product, and the only way to ensure they can't legally ignore it for something they may already own is to bully the little guys they know won't take them to court over fraudulent charges.

Not argueing that their version isn't shit. I agree it looks terrible.

 

I'd be interested in reading about those court cases if you have links.

[JZStudios]

37 minutes ago, tikker said:

You can't do "whatever you please". That would mean distributing as well, which you can't. An illegally obtained home copy is also illegal, together with breaking the copy protection on the disk to make the copy. The home copy law is an annoying gray area. The license you bought has terms attached to it and you agreed to those terms upon buying it. You don't own a copy, you own a license to use that copy of the software (that's not just my perspective).

Then why do people get upset when they are taken to court over it? Sounds like the usual "it's fine until it harms me" reasoning.

Yes, which is why I said what those modifications in the licenses mean are their own debate.

Making the mod for yourself would indeed be personal use. Distributing mods is not personal use.

If you wilfully agree to a license that tells you you can't do X then you can't do X.

Not argueing that their version isn't shit. I agree it looks terrible.

 

I'd be interested in reading about those court cases if you have links.

No, it doesn't. You're intentionally being dumb. There's been lots of cases about home copies, and they're 100% legal, so you're incorrect.

 

That's exactly what EULAs are, I'm tired of arguing this. They are not in any way legally binding until it's resolved in court. It's not my fault you don't know anything about law. Any company can write whatever they want in a EULA, it doesn't make it legally binding unless it's backed up by pre-existing laws.

 

Mods are not up for any debate. You own that software license, you free to do with it as you please, outside redistributing it.

 

Distributing mods that you created is not illegal. You're not distributing anything that has copyrights on it owned by anyone other than you. For the love of god, look up some law.

 

For the third time, EULAs don't mean shit.

 

I don't have links. Why am I expected to just have these links on hand? Alternatively, why am I expected to Google things for you? Google copyright law, specifically software licenses, dvd and game rips, game emulation, fan edits, reselling software, and EULAs. Specifically in the US, particularly since T2 is an American company.

[Avocado Diaboli]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

They are not in any way legally binding until it's resolved in court.

Technically that's true for any contract, since contractual disputes can't be resolved any other way besides going to court. The police aren't gonna arrest somebody or force them to pay just because you bring them a contract that stipulates something. So at best it's a meaningless distinction. And just like contracts, EULAs have been upheld in court. Not universally, but just like contracts, one EULA can be successfully defended in court just as one contract can be made null and void. 

[tikker]

4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

It's also been held true in court that expecting the layman to read and understand EULAs is unrealistic.

One small addition to your previous reply. Dutch law states that for general terms and conditions to be valid, you don't have to know what is in them. If you agree to them, you are bound by them. [Civil Code Article 232].

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

No, it doesn't. You're intentionally being dumb. There's been lots of cases about home copies, and they're 100% legal, so you're incorrect.

What's with the aggressiveness? I'm sure your vocabulary extends beyond belittling people. I'm not argueing home copies are illegal at all. It's perfectly legal to make them, our law even states you have the right to make them and the law has only been refined a few years ago to additionally specify it has to come from a legitimate source, so piracy is not an allowed channel of obtaining it [court case settling this]. Our copyright law also states the allowance of a backup (distinct from a home-use copy as far as the law goes) for software [Article 45 sub k of 1912 copyright law]. That same copyright law, however, states that breaking copy protection is illegal [Article 29a sub 2 of 1912 copyright law]. Sub 4 of that same article also does not allow the making of a home copy from content obtained via streaming services, because that is obtained at a time and locations of your choosing. That is what makes the home copy legally a gray and messy area. (I know stuff's in Dutch, but I'm argueing from a Dutch legal perspective so can't always be helped.)

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

That's exactly what EULAs are, I'm tired of arguing this. They are not in any way legally binding until it's resolved in court. It's not my fault you don't know anything about law. Any company can write whatever they want in a EULA, it doesn't make it legally binding unless it's backed up by pre-existing laws.

Not in conflict with what I said. Yes you can write anything you want in an agreement and you correctly say that it won't always be legally binding. Besides having to be presented or accessible before sealing the deal (e.g. buying the game), there are indeed conditions applied to them:

1. Accessible for later review, authenticity is reasonably guaranteed, moment of forming is reasonably known and the identiy of parties is known [Civil Code Article 227a].
2. Terms have to be reasonable, but it is generally up to you to prove the terms in the agreement are unreasonable if you think so [local law firm].
3. Can't be unreasonably burdening, e.g. by going against mandatory law [Civil Code Article 240]

A big problem with EULAs is them popping up after you bought things, which conflicts with the requirement of them needing to be accessible beforehand, but them being available online, even in say Steam's product pages, probably mitigates that.

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Distributing mods that you created is not illegal. You're not distributing anything that has copyrights on it owned by anyone other than you. For the love of god, look up some law.

 

For the third time, EULAs don't mean shit.

Saying they don't mean shit doesn't make them not mean shit. If you disagree with it or don't think something is legal, you go to court. This is exactly what the legal system is for. I have argued my position from Dutch law, happy to see counterpoints that go beyond calling me dumb. I can't speak for US law, but I found this work:

Quote

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1198&context=wmblr

The current copyright doctrine for mods is clear cut and blunt.[27] Though the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the subject and there is not an especially lengthy history of mod litigation, lower circuits have nonetheless ruled on the mod question on several occasions.[28] The resulting doctrine is crystal clear: game mods are derivative works and cannot be copyrighted in their own capacities.[29]
In addition to the holdings in Micro Star and its brethren,
modders also face significant barriers stemming from mandatory
EULAs and other so-called “clickwrap” agreements.[88]
<snip>
In other words, everything produced by modders using the
Creation Kit is wholly owned by Bethesda Softworks.[92] A cursory
examination of equivalent EULAs from other publishers shows
that this is more-or-less standard language across the industry.[93]
While the enforceability of EULAs might be debatable and typi-
cally considered on a case-by-case basis,[94] the language here is
clear: even when they are allowed to create them and commer-
cially exploit them, modders do not own their own creations.

What I at least conclude is that current laws may (still) not be fully equipped to deal with this, seeing how cases are judged on a case-by-case basis and that it's further complicated by it being practically very hard to stop modders. On the point of these clickwrap agreements, courts have rule them enforceable/binding in e.g. a Google-related case.

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I don't have links. Why am I expected to just have these links on hand? Alternatively, why am I expected to Google things for you? Google copyright law, specifically software licenses, dvd and game rips, game emulation, fan edits, reselling software, and EULAs. Specifically in the US, particularly since T2 is an American company.

Again, what's with the stick up your rear end. I'm not expecting you to have them on hand immediately. I simply express interest in them, because you bring them up. If you aren't willing to defend a position then don't bring it up? I'm aware the EU has ruled reselling of software is legal. That means you are legally allowed to transfer the rights of your license to another party. That just means licenses now can't prohibit you from reselling.

[Spuriae]

I don't know anything about this situation in particular. I just saw some legal discussion in this thread which I wanted to clear up. Granted, this is an area of law which is in flux at the moment and is likely to continue to change in the near future. This material is meant to be purely informational and is not legal advice.

(Don't be angry at me for quoting the law here; I'm not the one making these rules up. Go complain to Congress.)

 

34 minutes ago, tikker said:

I have argued my position from Dutch law, happy to see counterpoints that go beyond calling me dumb.

US J.D. student taking intellectual property and internet law here. The policies in the US are similar, though arguably skewing more anti-consumer.

5 hours ago, JZStudios said:

EULA's legally don't mean shit until taken to court. They almost always have stuff in them that's illegal or otherwise dismissible. It's also been held true in court that expecting the layman to read and understand EULAs is unrealistic. They don't mean anything.

• EULAs aren't legally binding until taken to court the same way murder isn't illegal if you don't get caught. Which is to say valid EULAs are absolutely legally binding; they just can't be enforced fully without being taken to court.
• EULAs are binding if they satisfy common law contract formation. Meyer v. Uber (2d Cir. 2017) shows that the bar for contract formation fairly low: normal-sized text stating that the user agreed to the terms by creating an account was sufficient to create a contract. Actual notice and assent are not required; reasonably conspicuous notice which a reasonably prudent user would recognize as having binding intent can create a contract whether or not the user actually reads (or potentially is even aware of!) the terms.
• If the terms are unreasonable/unconscionable/etc., they may be unenforceable. Courts will tend to strike only the objectionable provisions and leave the rest of the contract in place, though.

5 hours ago, JZStudios said:

You're perspective is irrelevant and incorrect. You purchased the license for your copy, and you have a legal right, backed by court cases, to do with it whatever you please. If you buy a DVD, you're 100% in your legal right to rip it to your computer and make your own edit.

• Purchasing a license is different from purchasing a copy. If you purchase a copy, you can do what you want with that particular copy, as long as you don't violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights (reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, public performance/display) or break any other laws. If you purchase a license, you agree to be bound by contractual terms in addition to existing copyright restrictions.
• Your legal right to rip and make an edit of software you own isn't explicitly protected, even if it might qualify as fair use as long as it's only for personal use. First-sale doctrine does not protect copying digital goods in general; see Capitol Records v. ReDigi (2d Cir. 2018).
• First-sale doctrine doesn't apply where a license rather than a sale of software has occurred. A court may decide that a software license was actually a sale based on the relationship between the parties, but there will likely be a presumption that the user does not own the software if they do end up in court. Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir. 2010) introduces a test specifying that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license, (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software, and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Distributing mods that you created is not illegal. You're not distributing anything that has copyrights on it owned by anyone other than you.

• Distributing mods that incorporate another party's copyrighted content or are based on them satisfies prima facie copyright infringement. It's distribution of a derivative work, which violates the exclusive rights of the copyright holders. 17 U.S.C. § 106 and § 501.