By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem on 19 March 2016
Edit Thread
elektranine said:
Nem said:

What the hell are you talking about? Besides, homicide games actually just rips assets from other sites, puts them together and calls them complete.

So... you defend we shouldn't be able to talk about anything without the creators express permission. Do you know what that is called? Fascism. Look at the word "copyrighted". I'm sure Jim isn't copying their "work" and i doubt its illegal to show footage of a game thats been released to the public already.

This is a battle about freedom of speech. Homicide games should be made an example of that. I hope the judge and jury make this a result to be remembered.

Its clear you don't understand what you are talking about. In the United States 'freedom of speech' has many limitations created by either court rulings or federal laws. One such limitation is commonly known as copyright law. I am talking about legal definitions here not webster dictionary. When an entity creates a creative work it is automatically protected and they get to control all rights to that work. Creating a video "work" based on another's work becomes known as a derivative work. You cannot do this without the expresss premission of the origional copyright holder, else that is considered copyright theft. There are a few builtin exceptions to copyright law such as fair use. In the US fair use has been very narrowly defined by court precedent & federal law. You can make a review of something and that's fair use. You can make parody/satire of something and that's considered fair use also. But you cannot make a video of anything for any other purpose without the IP holder's OK. The fair use exception also goes away entirely when a copryrighted work is harmed in any way by that fair use. Stearling is in very big trouble with this as there is massive court precendent for this and he has no legal defence.

 

First, you don't get to strike anything out. I can bring up whatever i feel like.

Second, again what are you talking about? You sound like you have personal information about this case. I am pretty sure that first, anyone can freely talk and criticise any piece of entertainment without any need to consult anyone. Second, you seem to be adressing footage is it? I don't even know what you are talking about and you should specify wich videos you say aren't in conformance with the law. I am sure that he had permission to make the reviews... just like everyone else did.

Also... how come is the work harmed in any way by his videos? By telling the truth? The truth is harmful? That sure is a funny interpretation of harmed. It would be harmed if he made stuff up, but i don't believe that was the case.