By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony DMCA's themselves on Twitter

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

A leak doesn't equate a publishing to claim fair use.

I just frikkin said that.  The leaker can not claim Fair Use.  Everybody else can. 

That would only apply if one could consider a leak as something published, can you demonstrate it can be used?

Also when your video, comment, post, etc... is 90% copy paste of the leak and then something you put yourself it is an infrigment. Funny enough even VGC request users to not copy and paste other places news, posts, threads, etc. You have to make your own view on it, at most summarize what was on the source and give the source.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

That would only apply if one could consider a leak as something published, can you demonstrate it can be used?

Also when your video, comment, post, etc... is 90% copy paste of the leak and then something you put yourself it is an infrigment. Funny enough even VGC request users to not copy and paste other places news, posts, threads, etc. You have to make your own view on it, at most summarize what was on the source and give the source.

I'm going to post this again because you don't seem to be understanding it from the legal perspective. "The leaker can not claim Fair Use.  Everybody else can."

"A fair use can occur under various circumstances, including copying for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research"

It doesn't say you can't copy 100%, 90% or 10%.  It says it may be copied.

VGC's rules are set for various reasons.  Most of which aren't even a legal matter. Citation, plagiarism, context, discussion, gives the original source their credit (forces you to read it there instead of here), etc...  More stuff I really shouldn't I shouldn't have to explain to you.  You keep pushing your ideas to fit situations that aren't relevant.

I'm still waiting on that Supreme Court case.

The link I put to you already cited that unpublished material can't have fair use claim, and it didn't limit to just the leaker.

and also the topics over there aren't sum they are excludent, it would need to obey all those instead of if it obey one you can dismiss the rest.

3. The amount of the original work copied; ... so this already dismiss your try of 100%

In a 1987 decision, J.D. Salinger sued a biographer who used quoted numerous passages from his unpublished letters that had been donated to various libraries. Although these letters were available for research by scholars, the Court decided that they still belonged to the author, who had the right to control his own material.

In a 1989 decision, the plaintiff, a publisher, sought to prevent the publication of a book about L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, because it included published and unpublished writings of Mr. Hubbard without authorization. The Court decided to permit publication, but it appeared that the decision was based on the plaintiff's "unreasonable and inexcusable delay" in bringing the action. In its opinion, the Court still followed the Salinger decision, stating that the copying of more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material would require the enjoining of its unauthorized use.

There you have your two cases.

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=law_lawreview

The fair use of unpublished works is a new problem for copyright law.
It dates to 1976, when the federal copyright statute extended statutory
copyright protection to unpublished works and exposed them, for the
first time, to the fair use privilege. Interpreting the statute's fair use provision and applying it to unpublished works is a troublesome task for the
courts, and the Second Circuit now has come close to holding that quotations from unpublished works are per se illegal.
It is by no means certain that Congress will rescue the courts from the
impasse to which they are heading. But the Second Circuit's fair use
decisions and the controversies surrounding them reveal that the judiciary may be willing and able to withdraw from that impasse by its own
efforts. Hence the arguments advanced here: 1) statute and case law do
not preclude the fair use of unpublished sources; 2) the judiciary is prepared to affirm that privilege; 3) doing so will require that the Second
Circuit relax its restrictive Salinger rule;225 and 4) fair use analysis
should build on the policies that historically have informed copyright law
and the fair use privilege.
Since fair use requires the "balancing of equities" and resists the framing of rules, 226 the focus here has been on the questions a court should
ask and the factors a court should weigh, not the rules and holdings a
court may frame. Those must depend on cases yet to be argued.

And this is the basis for no generalization. A case of fair use would only be declared fair use or not after decision of court. You can't say "since they are talking about a leak someone else made then it is already fair use".

So instead of bossing others around to learn to use google you could bring and present your evidence yourself plus not acting dismissive and condescendent.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 28 May 2020

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

The link I put to you already cited that unpublished material can't have fair use claim, and it didn't limit to just the leaker.

and also the topics over there aren't sum they are excludent, it would need to obey all those instead of if it obey one you can dismiss the rest.

3. The amount of the original work copied; ... so this already dismiss your try of 100%

In a 1987 decision, J.D. Salinger sued a biographer who used quoted numerous passages from his unpublished letters that had been donated to various libraries. Although these letters were available for research by scholars, the Court decided that they still belonged to the author, who had the right to control his own material.

In a 1989 decision, the plaintiff, a publisher, sought to prevent the publication of a book about L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, because it included published and unpublished writings of Mr. Hubbard without authorization. The Court decided to permit publication, but it appeared that the decision was based on the plaintiff's "unreasonable and inexcusable delay" in bringing the action. In its opinion, the Court still followed the Salinger decision, stating that the copying of more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material would require the enjoining of its unauthorized use.

There you have your two cases.

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=law_lawreview

The fair use of unpublished works is a new problem for copyright law.
It dates to 1976, when the federal copyright statute extended statutory
copyright protection to unpublished works and exposed them, for the
first time, to the fair use privilege. Interpreting the statute's fair use provision and applying it to unpublished works is a troublesome task for the
courts, and the Second Circuit now has come close to holding that quotations from unpublished works are per se illegal.
It is by no means certain that Congress will rescue the courts from the
impasse to which they are heading. But the Second Circuit's fair use
decisions and the controversies surrounding them reveal that the judiciary may be willing and able to withdraw from that impasse by its own
efforts. Hence the arguments advanced here: 1) statute and case law do not preclude the fair use of unpublished sources; 2) the judiciary is prepared to affirm that privilege; 3) doing so will require that the Second Circuit relax its restrictive Salinger rule;225 and 4) fair use analysis should build on the policies that historically have informed copyright law and the fair use privilege.
Since fair use requires the "balancing of equities" and resists the framing of rules, 226 the focus here has been on the questions a court should
ask and the factors a court should weigh, not the rules and holdings a
court may frame. Those must depend on cases yet to be argued.

And this is the basis for no generalization. A case of fair use would only be declared fair use or not after decision of court. You can't say "since they are talking about a leak someone else made then it is already fair use".

You.  You didn't even read your own Second Circuit Court result (I've bolded it for you).  Nor the document you quoted it from.   Goodness man.  I'll quote from your source.

"Although New Era's fair use analysis is only dictum, it alarms its critics because it suggests that "all copying from unpublished work is per se infringement." These critics include several Second Circuit judges, and also members of Congress who seek to amend the federal copyright law to ensure that the fair use privilege applies to unpublished as well as to published works."

To say nothing of the fact you are referencing cases whereby they were directly profiting from the publishing of the material prior to the actual copyright holder published it.   This is akin to a 3rd party publisher releasing TLOU2 as part of their own game before Sony publishes it.  We're talking apples, you bring oranges.

Yes I read, and sincerely your attacks and antagonization and sense of higher being didn't change from when you weren't a moderator. I'll drop the conversation since I won't keep on it and earn unnedeed antagonism from moderator.

Don't use only what you think do you a favor.

In a 1987 decision, J.D. Salinger sued a biographer who used quoted numerous passages from his unpublished letters that had been donated to various libraries. Although these letters were available for research by scholars, the Court decided that they still belonged to the author, who had the right to control his own material.

Here the letters were already available (not leaks) to scholars research but since it wasn't officially PUBLISHED they couldn't be claimed for fair use. And most of these sites and "journalists" are using it for their own profit (which isn't the same as commenting or criticizing published work) without a single care if it would detract from other parties being spoiled of their pleasure or profit.

Also spreading the leak would be akin to piking several sorted pages of an unreleased book that you got (but haven't signed a NDA) and release it them claim you have fair use because you haven't signed a deal and is commenting on the pages you are releasing without consent.

It isn't apples and oranges, and again it can only be declared clean after judiciary decides (otherwise you wouldn't really have Tweeter and Youtube agreeing to a very generic removal of material) but that will be my last post replying to you on the subject.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SpokenTruth said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Still debatable in federal court,published material for marketing or not and i'm not talking about this particular scenario but the bolded generalization you made in the previous comment .

But my statement wasn't a generalization.  It was specifically about marketing materials.

"Any photos or videos published for marketing purposes falls under Fair Use for they are published materials."


How in the world is that a generalization and not a specific reference to published marketing materials?

It is a generalization saying all published marketing materials used in other works are fair use and that is simply not true,it does depend on how they're used.

Something does not always lose it's copyrighted connections when published,mostly not.



sales2099 said:
melbye said:

Some people gave a reasonable explanation on the viewership disparity, ill give the reality that isn’t sunshine and rainbows. I see a lot of people online who are upset by certain elements in the spoilers. Coupled with the implications of harsh crunch culture, their mass YT copyright strikes is creating the “Streisand effect” (look it up if you don’t know) and ties to Anita Sarkeesian I can see bad word of mouth taking effect. 

This game gonna review great and sell millions. But I don’t think it will outsell the first titles lifetime. 

There was never any guarantee of it selling more than the first game which has now lived on 2 platforms (PS3/PS4), but I really think people are living in an echo-chamber if they think even 1% of the games potential audience will tune out because of this topic. All meaningful word of mouth will occur when the game is released, reviews pour in and people actually play it.

I will be following it sales very closely to see and hope to be proven right

Last edited by Otter - on 29 May 2020

Around the Network
Otter said:
sales2099 said:

Some people gave a reasonable explanation on the viewership disparity, ill give the reality that isn’t sunshine and rainbows. I see a lot of people online who are upset by certain elements in the spoilers. Coupled with the implications of harsh crunch culture, their mass YT copyright strikes is creating the “Streisand effect” (look it up if you don’t know) and ties to Anita Sarkeesian I can see bad word of mouth taking effect. 

This game gonna review great and sell millions. But I don’t think it will outsell the first titles lifetime. 

There was never any guarantee of it selling more than the first game which has now lived on 2 platforms (PS3/PS4), but I really think people are living in an echo-chamber if they think even 1% of the games potential audience will tune out because of this topic. All meaningful word of mouth will occur when the game is released, reviews pour in and people actually play it.

I will be following it sales very closely to see and hope to be proven right

Depends how principled people are who dislike left wing approaches in video games ie. Anita Sarkeesian thoughts and approaches to gaming. I figured all signs pointed to stronger total sales if the leaks weren’t so polarizing. Guess we’ll see. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Otter said:

There was never any guarantee of it selling more than the first game which has now lived on 2 platforms (PS3/PS4), but I really think people are living in an echo-chamber if they think even 1% of the games potential audience will tune out because of this topic. All meaningful word of mouth will occur when the game is released, reviews pour in and people actually play it.

I will be following it sales very closely to see and hope to be proven right

Depends how principled people are who dislike left wing approaches in video games ie. Anita Sarkeesian thoughts and approaches to gaming. I figured all signs pointed to stronger total sales if the leaks weren’t so polarizing. Guess we’ll see. 

Naughty Dog games have had that influence on TLOU1 already and UC4 and both broke records, so I don't think they will have major issues.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

Depends how principled people are who dislike left wing approaches in video games ie. Anita Sarkeesian thoughts and approaches to gaming. I figured all signs pointed to stronger total sales if the leaks weren’t so polarizing. Guess we’ll see. 

Naughty Dog games have had that influence on TLOU1 already and UC4 and both broke records, so I don't think they will have major issues.

Not to my knowledge. Both games starred “straight white males” after all. Both played it politically neutral for the most part (didn’t ND reveal Ellie was lesbian after the game came out?) Safe to say ND going in a different direction going forward, as Neil D. has said in interviews since. 

I’m not saying this will kill the hype or whatever, but I am curious what type of impact it will have. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

SpokenTruth said:
Immersiveunreality said:

1). It is a generalization saying all published marketing materials used in other works are fair use and that is simply not true,it does depend on how they're used.

2). Something does not always lose it's copyrighted connections when published,mostly not.

1). Example?

2). I don't even understand what you are saying here.  Why would anything lose copyright when published?

1) your own sentence is the example,what i said is a reaction to your sentence."Any photos or videos published for marketing purposes falls under Fair Use for they are published materials."I know you claim it is not a generalization but it is one made about ALL published materials for marketing purposes so it clearly is one,it is strange you try to deny such a clear fact.

2) That is why i tell you that you are wrong calling all things published fair use,because they do not lose copyright and if they do not lose copyright it is a big generalization claiming everything published for marketing is fair use.

That is what the law is and not my moral opinion.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 30 May 2020

Last edited by Ryotsu - on 30 May 2020