Microsoft prohibit users from profiting on created content : Othor Games

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:37 am

http://www.gamespot.com/news/new-microsoft-rules-prohibit-users-from-profiting-on-created-content-6397939

Yeah, well, [censored] you too.

Good thing gaming is slowly but steadily migrating towards Linux, because this is just bull[censored].

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:38 am

Is this what that recent Xbox update on the terms and conditions that I agreed to was for?

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:07 pm

That's kinda been the case for a while, just not spelled out like that nor enforced. It's also against the law. Current U.S. copyright laws state that the holder has the right to the work itself and all derivative works.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:22 am

Kind of old news now, but still an annoyance. In reality all this will probably do is result in a. A lot of bad lets-players without parnerships covering their games and B. The good lets-players and commentators simply ignoring their games entirely,

All Microsoft has done is cut off a source of free advertising.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:07 pm

Being entitled to be an [censored] and being an [censored] are completely different prospects.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:14 am

And people say Apple is the devil....

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:24 am

And people say Apple is the devil....

Apple already is Satan, Microsoft's just trying to catch up.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:39 am

That's kinda been the case for a while, just not spelled out like that nor enforced. It's also against the law. Current U.S. copyright laws state that the holder has the right to the work itself and all derivative works.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case for things such as commentaries/reviews, which are considered fair use. But I have no idea, you have weird laws.

Also, what of the people who live outside the U.S.?

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:42 pm

I'm pretty sure that's not the case for things such as commentaries/reviews, which are considered fair use. But I have no idea, you have weird laws.

It's fair use for non-profit ventures. Making money from the video means that it no longer falls under fair use.

Also, what of the people who live outside the U.S.?

Not 100% sure, but you'll recall the whole Kim Dotcom thing.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:52 am

Apple already is Satan, Microsoft's just trying to catch up.

they've been behind ever since that 'monopoly' ruling.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:36 am

It's fair use for non-profit ventures. Making money from the video means that it no longer falls under fair use.

Making money doesn't make it not fair use. Parodies are protected by fair use even if you profit off them.

Copyright laws are very complex and blanket statements like that aren't true. In fact, copyright laws are much like a pendulum in actuality: the restrictions on fair use ebbs and flows. What is considered protected under fair use a decade or so back probably wouldn't today because currently the climate is much more in favor of protecting IP. In many cases, though, it's impossible to say without a legal ruling. That is, except in situations like this where you agree beforehand to not profit.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:34 pm

Making money doesn't make it not fair use. Parodies are protected by fair use even if you profit off them.

Red Vs. Blue and that sort of thing are parodies. Random Let's Play videos are not.

Making money doesn't make it not fair use. Parodies are protected by fair use even if you profit off them.

Copyright laws are very complex and blanket statements like that aren't true. In fact, copyright laws are much like a pendulum in actuality: the restrictions on fair use ebbs and flows. What is considered protected under fair use a decade or so back probably wouldn't today because currently the climate is much more in favor of protecting IP. In many cases, though, it's impossible to say without a legal ruling. That is, except in situations like this where you agree beforehand to not profit.

Right. My statement was meant as a general example.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:15 am

Um...am I reading this wrong, because it makes sense to me...? I can't use copyrighted material in a for-profit venture without permission. This isn't new and it isn't limited to Microsoft unless I'm missing something. The fact that they added language about it to some licensing agreement doesn't change the fact that it was already pretty much a rule. One that actually makes sense, IMO.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:46 pm

Red Vs. Blue and that sort of thing are parodies. Random Let's Play videos are not.

I would argue that that's not true. Many of the most popular LPs and LPers are popular because they're, among other things, hilarious. Using some material to produce hilarious content (content that is meant to be laughed at/with) is a form of parody, even if you don't directly make fun of the content you're using.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:07 am

Red Vs. Blue and that sort of thing are parodies. Random Let's Play videos are not.

And the article makes no distinction between parodies and let's play videos. This leads me to believe all is equally forbidden.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:42 am

Disgusting and frightening.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:59 am

I would argue that that's not true. Many of the most popular LPs and LPers are popular because they're, among other things, hilarious. Using some material to produce hilarious content (content that is meant to be laughed at/with) is a form of parody, even if you don't directly make fun of the content you're using.

It would change in different situations, it's just an example.

And the article makes no distinction between parodies and let's play videos. This leads me to believe all is equally forbidden.

Here's what I found on Microsoft's website.

Spoiler

Here are the magic words from our lawyers: on the condition that you follow the rules below ("Rules"), Microsoft grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and display Game Content and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your noncommercial and personal use. This license is limited by the conditions and restrictions below, so please read them. We can revoke this limited-use license at any time and for any reason without liability to you.

If you share your Items with others, then you must include the following notice about the Game Content. You can put it in a README file, or on the web page from where it's downloaded, or anywhere else that makes sense so long as anyone who sees your Item will easily find this notice.

For videos that try to add to the fiction or canon of the franchise universe, please put it at the beginning of your video for at least five seconds. For all other videos, please put it at the end of your video for at least five seconds. Burying the notice, for example, deep in a web page in small print that is hard to find, does not comply.

[Name of the Microsoft Game] ? Microsoft Corporation. [The title of your Item] was created under Microsoft's "Game Content Usage Rules" using assets from [Name of the Microsoft Game]. It is not endorsed by Microsoft and does not reflect the views or opinions of Microsoft or anyone officially involved in producing or managing [Name of the Microsoft Game]. As such, it does not contribute to the official narrative of the fictional universe, if applicable.

Wherever you put the notice, you also need to include a link to these Game Content Usage Rules, so people can find them.

I think that's it, not 100% sure though. Under that description parodies AND let's play videos would be perfectly okay as long as you aren't profiting from it.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:22 am

It's fair use for non-profit ventures. Making money from the video means that it no longer falls under fair use.

I think I understand what MS did and here's what I think:

1: Showing gameplay or let's play videos of a game without making profit off it or not having a YT partnership is okay.

2: Showing gameplay or let's play videos of a game while make money off it is not okay.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:37 pm

I would argue that that's not true. Many of the most popular LPs and LPers are popular because they're, among other things, hilarious. Using some material to produce hilarious content (content that is meant to be laughed at/with) is a form of parody, even if you don't directly make fun of the content you're using.

Isn't making a parody different than actually using the copyrighted content in your parody and then selling said parody for profit, though?

If I write a book and then someone else makes some humorous changes to my book and then re-publishes and sells the book in their name without my permission that's copyright infringement. I guess I'm not seeing how this is different.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:59 pm

I would argue that that's not true. Many of the most popular LPs and LPers are popular because they're, among other things, hilarious. Using some material to produce hilarious content (content that is meant to be laughed at/with) is a form of parody, even if you don't directly make fun of the content you're using.

It doesn't matter either way. RoosterTeeth (makers of RvB) pay to license the Halo content. I don't see what the big deal is, if you want to use Microsoft's work to try to make money, then do it the legal way, purchase a license to use the content. I mean you can't go around throwing copyrighted pictures in a book or something and sell it to people. You need the license the stuff.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:24 pm

I think I understand what MS did and here's what I think:

1: Showing gameplay or let's play videos of a game without making profit off it or not having a YT partnership is okay.

2: Showing gameplay or let's play videos of a game while make money off it is not okay.

Pretty much.

» Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:07 pm

Pretty much.

So basicly you can still upload gameplay videos, you just can't make money off them. If a person is doing a LP of a game and not making money off it then this thing with MS---really doesn't matter IMHO.

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:14 am

So basicly you can still upload gameplay videos, you just can't make money off them. If a person is doing a LP of a game and not making money off it then this thing with MS---really doesn't matter IMHO.

Pretty much, they just want you to put that disclaimer in the video. :shrug:

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:12 am

I think that's it, not 100% sure though. Under that description parodies AND let's play videos would be perfectly okay as long as you aren't profiting from it.

But you are legally allowed to profit from parodies, which I said originally. Microsoft would be enforcing more draconian limitations than already presently dictated by the law

» Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:58 am

But you are legally allowed to profit from parodies, which I said originally. Microsoft would be enforcing more draconian limitations than already presently dictated by the law

What about parodies that contain the original copyrighted content without permission? Isn't that what this is about?