It's their intellectual property. It's like taking the new Harry Potter book and inserting your own chapter and distributing it. It may not harm anyone, but it devalues the work the original author spent creating it.
It's illegal and I don't see how they are "being a dick" by protecting what is theirs. No one has any right to modify it other than them and that should be respected.
You mean the one about snape and harry's forbidden love?
Or taking the original movie and dubbing over the soundtrack with your own commentary.
I'm talking about taking the book and pasting your own chapter somewhere in there. I'm not sure how fanfiction stands legally.
Or, like you said, taking a movie and adding your own scenes or pasting your head in on characters and releasing it. It devalues the hard work people put in to create it and it is illegal.
It's their intellectual property. It's like taking the new Harry Potter book and inserting your own chapter and distributing it. It may not harm anyone, but it devalues the work the original author spent creating it.
It's illegal and I don't see how they are "being a dick" by protecting what is theirs. No one has any right to modify it other than them and that should be respected.
No, its more like writing a Harry Potter Fanfic that fits between chapters 3 and 4 and offering it online to print so people can chose to slip it into their own books of their own free will without cost or charge.
I'm only slightly up in arms because it's basically corporate strongarming. The legality of the mod is suspect, but more so because of its inclusion of copyrighted materials less than any harm to Nintendo. I understand why Nintendo sent the C&D, and the developers of the mod were nice enough to abide by it. But they didn't have to.
Any supposed "agreement" in a game manual is a contract of adhesion, and as presented is likely unconscionable (archival or backup copies of software are legal in the US no matter what Nintendo tells you in the back of a manual). The actual EULA that pops up when you turn on a console for the first time at least allows a degree of consent, although even that is not on rock-solid legal ground.
Any supposed "agreement" in a game manual is a contract of adhesion, and as presented is likely unconscionable (archival or backup copies of software are legal in the US no matter what Nintendo tells you in the back of a manual). The actual EULA that pops up when you turn on a console for the first time at least allows a degree of consent, although even that is not on rock-solid legal ground.
There is plenty of caselaw stating that EULAs of this nature are not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
It depends on the EULA, but the Nintendo EULA is standard fare, and EULAs exactly like it have been pronounced by many courts, specifically, as not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
Because this group was of no threat to nintendo and they got stopped from doing something neat.
Hey Nintendo, you knew that these guys were using this project to put in characters that were not only breaking copyright from you, but also breaking copyright that neither you own nor they own, using your material to do so.
What up?
But yeah, there's no hot water ninty could get in giving implied consent to a group of hackers putting megaman into the game and releasing instructions and the necessary files for anyone to do so.
Man microsoft is fucked, you should see the stuff people make with their Visual C++ program.
I know you're joking, but using the software for its intended purpose is not breaking the license agreement. Producing entirely new works is not breaking copyright. Making stuff with Visual C++ is not per se breaking copyright, if they're not lifting stuff from someone else. And, in fact, a copyright proprietor can license as much or as little as he wants subject to the Copyright Acts and fair use.
What Nintendo has done here is a completely valid enforcement of copyright.
Don't like it, think it's unfair, think they're smushing the small guys instead of going after the bigger fish, maybe yes maybe no. But what they have chosen to do, there's nothing legally wrong with it.
Yeah this is mentioned right in the op. The whole point is that they're dicks. Something like this isn't expected from nintendo! I guess they are just another big company after all, like so many love to point out. Nintendo! I-I no longer wish I had a sister you could marry!
Actually this is exactly the kinda bullshit I'd expect from Nintendo.
Really?
I can't think of any other fan-project that Nintendo shut down.
...which actually makes me suspicious. I can't help but wonder if in reality the guys got over their heads with this project, especially since if it was big enough to catch Nintendo's attention I would have expected to hear of it beforehand, like the Mother 3 translation, and instead of admitting they quit they merely said that Nintendo shut it down.
Man microsoft is fucked, you should see the stuff people make with their Visual C++ program.
I know you're joking, but using the software for its intended purpose is not breaking the license agreement. Producing entirely new works is not breaking copyright. Making stuff with Visual C++ is not per se breaking copyright, if they're not lifting stuff from someone else. And, in fact, a copyright proprietor can license as much or as little as he wants subject to the Copyright Acts and fair use.
If someone makes a megaman clone using it, is microsoft liable?
Man microsoft is fucked, you should see the stuff people make with their Visual C++ program.
I know you're joking, but using the software for its intended purpose is not breaking the license agreement. Producing entirely new works is not breaking copyright. Making stuff with Visual C++ is not per se breaking copyright, if they're not lifting stuff from someone else. And, in fact, a copyright proprietor can license as much or as little as he wants subject to the Copyright Acts and fair use.
If someone makes a megaman clone using it, is microsoft liable?
Probably not, no. The only theories they would be liable under would be Vicarious or Contributory liability. You can only be liable under these theories with certain circumstances, like marketing your product as a way to copy another's work, just as an example of one factor (of many factors/elements).
But MS isn't providing and marketing their software development environments as ways or means for the purpose of infringment. They'd be fine even if someone else used their software to produce infringing software.
Also, there is a defense where your software (or device, etc.) if it has substantial noninfringing uses, then the producer of the software (etc.) may be found clear of liability even though some users use it for infringment (this is how VCRs were given the OK by the court system, for example)
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
They may have been able to get around it but probably didn't want to waste the time and money when they stood to gain nothing by letting these guys go ahead.
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
What?
Here's what I'm saying - Microsoft would not be liable under Vicarious or Contributory theories of liability if someone else used their software for infringment. The only way they could is if they met the various elements/factors of Vicarious or Contrib liability, and there are many such factors (marketing, supervising infringing acts, knowledge factor, means to infringe, etc etc etc).
Nintendo would not be liable under either theory because they have not met these elements/factors for either theory. And in fact, their software was modified to make the infringment (of Capcom, for example) possible.
Using Brawl to put Megaman in the game would in fact break Nintendo's license and also infringe on Capcom's intellectual property of Megaman. And Nintendo would not be liable at all for the Megaman, because they would not be found as such under vic/contrib liab.
The only person potentially liable are the direct infringers; the hackers team. For breaking Nintendo's EULA and infringing their copyright and also for infringing Capcom's copyright in Megaman.
But yeah, there's no hot water ninty could get in giving implied consent to a group of hackers putting megaman into the game and releasing instructions and the necessary files for anyone to do so.
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
They may have been able to get around it but probably didn't want to waste the time and money when they stood to gain nothing by letting these guys go ahead.
It seems like if it wasn't a legitimate reason to sue someone over then there would be no time and money to waste? They certainly lose a bit by doing this, however. MY FANBOYISM IS WORTH BILLIONS
Any supposed "agreement" in a game manual is a contract of adhesion, and as presented is likely unconscionable (archival or backup copies of software are legal in the US no matter what Nintendo tells you in the back of a manual). The actual EULA that pops up when you turn on a console for the first time at least allows a degree of consent, although even that is not on rock-solid legal ground.
There is plenty of caselaw stating that EULAs of this nature are not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
ProCD v. Zeidenberg comes to mind.
Click-throughs are a separate matter than whatever (if any... I'm not sure) agreement appearing in a game manual - and even for click-through agreements the case law really isn't clear cut. In the above case, Zeidenberg used a non-commercial license to use software in a commercial way (which was not allowed in the EULA). However, the holding was somewhat predicated on the fact that he had the option to return the software if he did not agree to the license terms, and Zeidenberg never argued that the terms were objectionable but just that the agreement never counted in the first place. Neither of those are always the case, to be honest.
If people want to abide by EULAs, that is their prerogative. But just because you clicked that you agree to something does not mean you can actually "sign away" your rights.
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
What?
Here's what I'm saying - Microsoft would not be liable under Vicarious or Contributory theories of liability if someone else used their software for infringment. The only way they could is if they met the various elements/factors of Vicarious or Contrib liability, and there are many such factors (marketing, supervising infringing acts, knowledge factor, means to infringe, etc etc etc).
Nintendo would not be liable under either theory because they have not met these elements/factors for either theory. And in fact, their software was modified to make the infringment (of Capcom, for example) possible.
Using Brawl to put Megaman in the game would in fact break Nintendo's license and also infringe on Capcom's intellectual property of Megaman. And Nintendo would not be liable at all for the Megaman, because they would not be found as such under vic/contrib liab.
The only person potentially liable are the direct infringers; the hackers team. For breaking Nintendo's EULA and infringing their copyright and also for infringing Capcom's copyright in Megaman.
It wouldn't put them in any hot water if they knew specifically about someone using their software to infringe capcoms intellectual property and simply let it fly?
Any supposed "agreement" in a game manual is a contract of adhesion, and as presented is likely unconscionable (archival or backup copies of software are legal in the US no matter what Nintendo tells you in the back of a manual). The actual EULA that pops up when you turn on a console for the first time at least allows a degree of consent, although even that is not on rock-solid legal ground.
There is plenty of caselaw stating that EULAs of this nature are not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
ProCD v. Zeidenberg comes to mind.
Click-throughs are a separate matter than whatever (if any... I'm not sure) agreement appearing in a game manual - and even for click-through agreements the case law really isn't clear cut. In the above case, Zeidenberg used a non-commercial license to use software in a commercial way (which was not allowed in the EULA). However, the holding was somewhat predicated on the fact that he had the option to return the software if he did not agree to the license terms, and Zeidenberg never argued that the terms were objectionable but just that the agreement never counted in the first place. Neither of those are always the case, to be honest.
If people want to abide by EULAs, that is their prerogative. But just because you clicked that you agree to something does not mean you can actually "sign away" your rights.
I don't disagree. But it sounded to me like you were saying that EULAs like this were per se unconsionable, and they're not, and many courts have upheld them.
EULAs will be found unconscionable for reasons that most contracts are found unconscionable. But the courts have generally been very lenient when it comes to software license EULAs so long as they allow for reproduction in the user's machine for the purposes of using that software. Congress has carved out other exceptions that EULAs can't "contract around" too, such as for repair/maintenance.
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
What?
Here's what I'm saying - Microsoft would not be liable under Vicarious or Contributory theories of liability if someone else used their software for infringment. The only way they could is if they met the various elements/factors of Vicarious or Contrib liability, and there are many such factors (marketing, supervising infringing acts, knowledge factor, means to infringe, etc etc etc).
Nintendo would not be liable under either theory because they have not met these elements/factors for either theory. And in fact, their software was modified to make the infringment (of Capcom, for example) possible.
Using Brawl to put Megaman in the game would in fact break Nintendo's license and also infringe on Capcom's intellectual property of Megaman. And Nintendo would not be liable at all for the Megaman, because they would not be found as such under vic/contrib liab.
The only person potentially liable are the direct infringers; the hackers team. For breaking Nintendo's EULA and infringing their copyright and also for infringing Capcom's copyright in Megaman.
It wouldn't put them in any hot water if they knew specifically about someone using their software to infringe capcoms intellectual property and simply let it fly?
In that case they may potentially be vicariously liable, possibly, if there was a specific instance of infringment that they knew of and they had some kind of control over it. Possibly. But it would depend on a lot more factors of the scenario.
Is that not what Khavall was saying? That by not doing this Nintendo was possibly going to be in trouble?
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
What?
Here's what I'm saying - Microsoft would not be liable under Vicarious or Contributory theories of liability if someone else used their software for infringment. The only way they could is if they met the various elements/factors of Vicarious or Contrib liability, and there are many such factors (marketing, supervising infringing acts, knowledge factor, means to infringe, etc etc etc).
Nintendo would not be liable under either theory because they have not met these elements/factors for either theory. And in fact, their software was modified to make the infringment (of Capcom, for example) possible.
Using Brawl to put Megaman in the game would in fact break Nintendo's license and also infringe on Capcom's intellectual property of Megaman. And Nintendo would not be liable at all for the Megaman, because they would not be found as such under vic/contrib liab.
The only person potentially liable are the direct infringers; the hackers team. For breaking Nintendo's EULA and infringing their copyright and also for infringing Capcom's copyright in Megaman.
It wouldn't put them in any hot water if they knew specifically about someone using their software to infringe capcoms intellectual property and simply let it fly?
In that case they may potentially be vicariously liable, possibly, if there was a specific instance of infringment that they knew of and they had some kind of control over it. Possibly. But it would depend on a lot more factors of the scenario.
Well I mean, they did kind of have control over it by squashing the product.
I just would find it weird to think that if one guy comes up to another and says "I'm going to use your stuff to infringe on that guys copyright" and the second guy says "Good plan" the second guy is off the hook for any copyright violation.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
Little Big Planet has been offing IP infringing levels left and right.
Edit: Also, Slash could probably attest to Guitar Hero pulling songs as well.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
Little Big Planet has been offing IP infringing levels left and right.
Edit: Also, Slash could probably attest to Guitar Hero pulling songs as well.
An MGS level, two Mario levels and a Batman level are all right on LBP's front page of community levels. They had a weird copy protection spasm for a few days and then stopped caring.
LBP would actually be more liable than Nintendo would be in this case because I'm pretty sure part of LBP's EULA says that all of the published levels are property of Sony.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
LBP pulls so much anti-IP-infringement they have been known to pull levels that aren't infringement at all.
I see this whole situation as a way of Nintendo protecting it's content, because there is always the risk that whoever had these tools would start selling their Smash Brothers Versus Capcom Ultra Edition.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
LBP pulls so much anti-IP-infringement they have been known to pull levels that aren't infringement at all.
Yeah but like youtube they also host and distribute created content. LBP was a poor choice of example...I guess more like oblivion? I actually don't play a lot of mod-heavy games. If someone could think of a case where one sent some guys a C&D I'd appreciate it.
Well I mean, they did kind of have control over it by squashing the product.
No, rather, they'd need more control. I assume by product you mean the Brawl modifications? They had no control over the group doing it and didn't provide the means for doing it and didn't oversee it or anything. Nintendo would not be found vic/contrib liable under this circumstance. And it's not like they knew for certain it was going on (or maybe they did, we'd need more facts), but even if they knew about it, it's not like they provided the tools to conduct the infringment. They provided a completely legit game and the hackers used their own tools to conduct infringment.
I just would find it weird to think that if one guy comes up to another and says "I'm going to use your stuff to infringe on that guys copyright" and the second guy says "Good plan" the second guy is off the hook for any copyright violation.
The second guy wouldn't necessarily be off the hook, it depends heavily on a lot of factors applied to a lot of facts.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
LBP pulls so much anti-IP-infringement they have been known to pull levels that aren't infringement at all.
Yeah but like youtube they also host and distribute created content. LBP was a poor choice of example...I guess more like oblivion? I actually don't play a lot of mod-heavy games. If someone could think of a case where one sent some guys a C&D I'd appreciate it.
Oblivion, the game where it got changed to an M rated and had a huge news story after someone modded nudes from in-game assets.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
Who is "they?" It's part of the license agreement that users don't use the tools to infringe. The people providing the game (Media molecule) aren't infringing and are probably not going to be found vic/contrib liable.
They may possibly have a duty to try and prevent infringment, but as long as they do so reasonably and aren't actively marketing LBP as a way to infringe, it's unlikely that they'd be liable vicariously.
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
Certain hosts of internet data are given a little leeway in that they have to have certain restrictions and a policy that removes infringing data once it's discovered. Google/youtube may fall under such a category I'm nto sure.
So how about LBP? Or anything that allows modding or excessive creative control by users. Are they always ever-vigilant against possible copyright infringement?
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
Little Big Planet has been offing IP infringing levels left and right.
Edit: Also, Slash could probably attest to Guitar Hero pulling songs as well.
Yes, both of these companies that host data from users have an agreement with the end user that they will not use the tools to infringe. Also, these companies hosting the data are probably the type with a duty and a policy to the copyright owners to remove infringing data from their servers once its discovered.
Furthermore, it's okay to have software (and other things like VCRs) for which some people use for infringment; as long as the software has substantial noninfringing uses, the providing company is usually A-OK and not liable. To meet the requiremnts for vic/contrib liability, they have to do a whole lot more than merely provide the tools with substantial noninfringing uses. There are a lot more factors to meet.
Posts
It's illegal and I don't see how they are "being a dick" by protecting what is theirs. No one has any right to modify it other than them and that should be respected.
Or taking the original movie and dubbing over the soundtrack with your own commentary.
Protecting it from what? This "devaluation"? Tell me more about this devalue process. Is it like how counter strike made half life worthless?
I'm talking about taking the book and pasting your own chapter somewhere in there. I'm not sure how fanfiction stands legally.
Or, like you said, taking a movie and adding your own scenes or pasting your head in on characters and releasing it. It devalues the hard work people put in to create it and it is illegal.
No, its more like writing a Harry Potter Fanfic that fits between chapters 3 and 4 and offering it online to print so people can chose to slip it into their own books of their own free will without cost or charge.
EDIT
Damn beaten to the fanfic argument.
But yeah if the harry potter duders shut this down it would also be a dick move.
Any supposed "agreement" in a game manual is a contract of adhesion, and as presented is likely unconscionable (archival or backup copies of software are legal in the US no matter what Nintendo tells you in the back of a manual). The actual EULA that pops up when you turn on a console for the first time at least allows a degree of consent, although even that is not on rock-solid legal ground.
I know, I'm treading on thin ice over here!
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I can't say I'm surprised that Nintendo responded this way, and anyone who hacks their Wii should realize this was an inevitability.
Also, it is too bad most of the texture hacks are terrible.
There is plenty of caselaw stating that EULAs of this nature are not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
It depends on the EULA, but the Nintendo EULA is standard fare, and EULAs exactly like it have been pronounced by many courts, specifically, as not contracts of adhesion and not per se unconscionable
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Hey Nintendo, you knew that these guys were using this project to put in characters that were not only breaking copyright from you, but also breaking copyright that neither you own nor they own, using your material to do so.
What up?
But yeah, there's no hot water ninty could get in giving implied consent to a group of hackers putting megaman into the game and releasing instructions and the necessary files for anyone to do so.
I know you're joking, but using the software for its intended purpose is not breaking the license agreement. Producing entirely new works is not breaking copyright. Making stuff with Visual C++ is not per se breaking copyright, if they're not lifting stuff from someone else. And, in fact, a copyright proprietor can license as much or as little as he wants subject to the Copyright Acts and fair use.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Really?
I can't think of any other fan-project that Nintendo shut down.
...which actually makes me suspicious. I can't help but wonder if in reality the guys got over their heads with this project, especially since if it was big enough to catch Nintendo's attention I would have expected to hear of it beforehand, like the Mother 3 translation, and instead of admitting they quit they merely said that Nintendo shut it down.
If someone makes a megaman clone using it, is microsoft liable?
Probably not, no. The only theories they would be liable under would be Vicarious or Contributory liability. You can only be liable under these theories with certain circumstances, like marketing your product as a way to copy another's work, just as an example of one factor (of many factors/elements).
But MS isn't providing and marketing their software development environments as ways or means for the purpose of infringment. They'd be fine even if someone else used their software to produce infringing software.
Also, there is a defense where your software (or device, etc.) if it has substantial noninfringing uses, then the producer of the software (etc.) may be found clear of liability even though some users use it for infringment (this is how VCRs were given the OK by the court system, for example)
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Nintendo does not market their brawl game that way.
They may have been able to get around it but probably didn't want to waste the time and money when they stood to gain nothing by letting these guys go ahead.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
They're protected via parody, you ignorant prick.
Also, the whole issue is ]ee[ whining that their baby got aborted but there's other other children out on the playground abloo bloo bloo.
What?
Here's what I'm saying - Microsoft would not be liable under Vicarious or Contributory theories of liability if someone else used their software for infringment. The only way they could is if they met the various elements/factors of Vicarious or Contrib liability, and there are many such factors (marketing, supervising infringing acts, knowledge factor, means to infringe, etc etc etc).
Nintendo would not be liable under either theory because they have not met these elements/factors for either theory. And in fact, their software was modified to make the infringment (of Capcom, for example) possible.
Using Brawl to put Megaman in the game would in fact break Nintendo's license and also infringe on Capcom's intellectual property of Megaman. And Nintendo would not be liable at all for the Megaman, because they would not be found as such under vic/contrib liab.
The only person potentially liable are the direct infringers; the hackers team. For breaking Nintendo's EULA and infringing their copyright and also for infringing Capcom's copyright in Megaman.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Slash: Sarcasm?
It seems like if it wasn't a legitimate reason to sue someone over then there would be no time and money to waste? They certainly lose a bit by doing this, however. MY FANBOYISM IS WORTH BILLIONS
Click-throughs are a separate matter than whatever (if any... I'm not sure) agreement appearing in a game manual - and even for click-through agreements the case law really isn't clear cut. In the above case, Zeidenberg used a non-commercial license to use software in a commercial way (which was not allowed in the EULA). However, the holding was somewhat predicated on the fact that he had the option to return the software if he did not agree to the license terms, and Zeidenberg never argued that the terms were objectionable but just that the agreement never counted in the first place. Neither of those are always the case, to be honest.
If people want to abide by EULAs, that is their prerogative. But just because you clicked that you agree to something does not mean you can actually "sign away" your rights.
I don't disagree. But it sounded to me like you were saying that EULAs like this were per se unconsionable, and they're not, and many courts have upheld them.
EULAs will be found unconscionable for reasons that most contracts are found unconscionable. But the courts have generally been very lenient when it comes to software license EULAs so long as they allow for reproduction in the user's machine for the purposes of using that software. Congress has carved out other exceptions that EULAs can't "contract around" too, such as for repair/maintenance.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
In that case they may potentially be vicariously liable, possibly, if there was a specific instance of infringment that they knew of and they had some kind of control over it. Possibly. But it would depend on a lot more factors of the scenario.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I just would find it weird to think that if one guy comes up to another and says "I'm going to use your stuff to infringe on that guys copyright" and the second guy says "Good plan" the second guy is off the hook for any copyright violation.
I mean I guess youtube is, but they also host the content.
Little Big Planet has been offing IP infringing levels left and right.
Edit: Also, Slash could probably attest to Guitar Hero pulling songs as well.
An MGS level, two Mario levels and a Batman level are all right on LBP's front page of community levels. They had a weird copy protection spasm for a few days and then stopped caring.
LBP would actually be more liable than Nintendo would be in this case because I'm pretty sure part of LBP's EULA says that all of the published levels are property of Sony.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
BY THE WAY EVERYONE THIS BRINGS NINTENDO BACK TO #1 FUN COMPANY FULL OF CREATIVE PEOPLE, ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT FANS ETC
LBP pulls so much anti-IP-infringement they have been known to pull levels that aren't infringement at all.
I see this whole situation as a way of Nintendo protecting it's content, because there is always the risk that whoever had these tools would start selling their Smash Brothers Versus Capcom Ultra Edition.
Yeah but like youtube they also host and distribute created content. LBP was a poor choice of example...I guess more like oblivion? I actually don't play a lot of mod-heavy games. If someone could think of a case where one sent some guys a C&D I'd appreciate it.
No, rather, they'd need more control. I assume by product you mean the Brawl modifications? They had no control over the group doing it and didn't provide the means for doing it and didn't oversee it or anything. Nintendo would not be found vic/contrib liable under this circumstance. And it's not like they knew for certain it was going on (or maybe they did, we'd need more facts), but even if they knew about it, it's not like they provided the tools to conduct the infringment. They provided a completely legit game and the hackers used their own tools to conduct infringment.
The second guy wouldn't necessarily be off the hook, it depends heavily on a lot of factors applied to a lot of facts.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Oblivion, the game where it got changed to an M rated and had a huge news story after someone modded nudes from in-game assets.
slash you are raining on my parade. T-They had to stop these guys because they didn't have a choice! They didn't want to!
Who is "they?" It's part of the license agreement that users don't use the tools to infringe. The people providing the game (Media molecule) aren't infringing and are probably not going to be found vic/contrib liable.
They may possibly have a duty to try and prevent infringment, but as long as they do so reasonably and aren't actively marketing LBP as a way to infringe, it's unlikely that they'd be liable vicariously.
Certain hosts of internet data are given a little leeway in that they have to have certain restrictions and a policy that removes infringing data once it's discovered. Google/youtube may fall under such a category I'm nto sure.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Yes, both of these companies that host data from users have an agreement with the end user that they will not use the tools to infringe. Also, these companies hosting the data are probably the type with a duty and a policy to the copyright owners to remove infringing data from their servers once its discovered.
Furthermore, it's okay to have software (and other things like VCRs) for which some people use for infringment; as long as the software has substantial noninfringing uses, the providing company is usually A-OK and not liable. To meet the requiremnts for vic/contrib liability, they have to do a whole lot more than merely provide the tools with substantial noninfringing uses. There are a lot more factors to meet.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Oh-ho? So inform me then. You think if someone takes their boobs and puts them in smash brothers it will become M-rated?