I've not once mentioned morals. I bought the game, I don't care about justifying why I bought it. I've bought games from asshole devs before. If it doesn't matter to you then stop responding. This whole backlash is OMG look at this asshole dev who tried to use the law to cut into TB's income. If you want to frame it otherwise, you're free to do so, but this is about one over the top internet personality and his fans getting their panties in a bunch. If you want to say I have some sort of grudge against TB, then I'll totally own up to that, but don't make things up where there is nothing there.
So by your logic, it's okay if bad things happen as long as they happen to people you don't like? Once again, I point you to this. ->
Edit: I believe you misunderstood why I brought this up. The only reason I mentioned TB was because he was the person who it happened to. I don't care if it happened to PissedPedro, Pewdiepie, MovieBob or any reviewers I dislike. Their personality/likeability doesn't change what happened aside from your levels of sympathy. But I didn't post out of sympathy, I posted out of disgust for a dev's behaviour. That's all.
Okay then. Sorry the idea of giving money to bullies is so abhorrent to me. They didn't use the law to affect his income, they used it to censor and intimidate, which you've already said you're okay with. And I'm not okay with it. I posted in the first place, because I know there are other people who are not okay with it. But since we share fundamentally different opinions on the subject, it's not even worth arguing any more.
I've not once mentioned morals. I bought the game, I don't care about justifying why I bought it. I've bought games from asshole devs before. If it doesn't matter to you then stop responding. This whole backlash is OMG look at this asshole dev who tried to use the law to cut into TB's income. If you want to frame it otherwise, you're free to do so, but this is about one over the top internet personality and his fans getting their panties in a bunch. If you want to say I have some sort of grudge against TB, then I'll totally own up to that, but don't make things up where there is nothing there.
I didn't say you mentioned morals, but you're sitting here complaining that Bobby apparently implored us to support TB by boycotting GotW, when that very clearly never happened. And as soon as he explained the situation that happened, you jumped in saying you didn't care, it's only 5 cents, etc. I just used to term morality to denote a lack of it, or just apathy towards the entire thing.
And whatever the "backlash" is about, that doesn't really have shit to do with what was said in this thread. The guy pointed out the situation and said the dev was an asshole, which they were. He never told anyone to support TB, and this all has very little to do with TB besides him just being a part of the original situation. The point was and has always been "This dev is a total asshole, I'd recommend not supporting him.", which is hardly an order. You can either buy the game or not buy the game. It doesn't matter to anyone either way.
And really, if you didn't care about any justification, why has this thing gone on so long?
Oh no, the Battleblock Theater devs have turned into total assholes. I hate to break this to you guys and will assist you in any deletion/destruction of your copies of Castle Crashers. I totally hate when devs try to enforce their copyrights how they wish turn into total asshole bullies.
We will allow any accepted Beta Tester to share unaltered images, videos, and streams of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta as long as they have an attached disclaimer that the media shared is from the Beta Version of the game, the media is not monetized in any way, and the Beta is not given a review. No reviews of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta are allowed for press and non-press alike.
This restriction on Beta materials is in affect even after the Beta has ended.
Once the full, publicly released version of BattleBlock Theater Steam is out, we encourage everyone to write or record honest reviews of the finished product.
Oh no, the Battleblock Theater devs have turned into total assholes. I hate to break this to you guys and will assist you in any deletion/destruction of your copies of Castle Crashers. I totally hate when devs try to enforce their copyrights how they wish turn into total asshole bullies.
We will allow any accepted Beta Tester to share unaltered images, videos, and streams of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta as long as they have an attached disclaimer that the media shared is from the Beta Version of the game, the media is not monetized in any way, and the Beta is not given a review. No reviews of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta are allowed for press and non-press alike.
This restriction on Beta materials is in affect even after the Beta has ended.
Once the full, publicly released version of BattleBlock Theater Steam is out, we encourage everyone to write or record honest reviews of the finished product.
Considering that's more akin to a non-disclosure agreement, and likely written into the terms you agree to when applying to be a beta tester, that has almost nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread.
Considering that's more akin to a non-disclosure agreement, and likely written into the terms you agree to when applying to be a beta tester, that has almost nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread.
I'm just posting info. Totally neutral dude. Because like, you never agree to shit or terms and conditions when you buy and install a game or program. That totally never happens so these situations are totally not alike at all. But again, just posting info. Take it how you wish.
Oh no, the Battleblock Theater devs have turned into total assholes. I hate to break this to you guys and will assist you in any deletion/destruction of your copies of Castle Crashers. I totally hate when devs try to enforce their copyrights how they wish turn into total asshole bullies.
We will allow any accepted Beta Tester to share unaltered images, videos, and streams of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta as long as they have an attached disclaimer that the media shared is from the Beta Version of the game, the media is not monetized in any way, and the Beta is not given a review. No reviews of the BattleBlock Theater Steam Beta are allowed for press and non-press alike.
This restriction on Beta materials is in affect even after the Beta has ended.
Once the full, publicly released version of BattleBlock Theater Steam is out, we encourage everyone to write or record honest reviews of the finished product.
Fine. Wanna know why that's okay? BECAUSE WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR THE BETA YOU AGREED TO IT AND YOU DIDN'T PAY A CENT. Jesus ing christ.
Also, they said gameplay footage is allowed as long as you mention it's a beta. Basically, they just don't want their game getting ripped a new asshole because it has issues in Beta, and don't want people getting the impression that the Beta is the finished product. The review embargo is removed for the full release, if you notice.
As much as I think that there shouldn't be an embargo for reviews as long as they note it's in Beta, and would love to have it removed, they provided that info for you during the Beta sign-up (you didn't even have to read the T&C, they put it in your face on the registration page).
I'm just posting info. Totally neutral dude. Because like, you never agree to shit or terms and conditions when you buy and install a game or program. That totally never happens so these situations are totally not alike at all. But again, just posting info. Take it how you wish.
You agree to Terms and Conditions for Steam, not the devs. In this case you agree to T&C for the beta when you register. Idiot is right, and you are making a strawman and you know it.
I'm just posting info. Totally neutral dude. Because like, you never agree to shit or terms and conditions when you buy and install a game or program. That totally never happens so these situations are totally not alike at all. But again, just posting info. Take it how you wish.
There were no terms and conditions when I bought GotW, nor were there any terms and conditions when I just pretended like I was going to install it on Steam. When you sign up as a beta tester, there's a clear list of limitations and terms you must clearly accept and agree to.
Apples and oranges, but I appreciate your snarky attempt to connect the two situations.
I'm rather surprised about that as well. Do you know of any other times that's been allowed? Every beta I've been in for awhile has always had a ridiculously strict non-disclosure agreement all over it, not even allowing screenshots of the thing.
I just emailed Steam asking them to remove Castle Crashers from my account. They told me I didn't own it. I yelled some legal terms at them and they told me I was still wrong. I'm contacting an attorney about this. Will keep you guys updated.
It i totally reasonable. See the thing is copyright law doesn't have exceptions in the fair use doctrine for betas or alphas or anything like that. They don't say that a dev can get around fair use by calling their game a beta. It's actually a good representation of how much control devs have over their copyrighted work. If they made every purchaser agree to a similar agreement they could and throwing out terms like fair use or parody wouldn't invalidate the terms you as an end user agreed to. Its just people conveniently choose to play dumb or make exceptions to what they find morally reprehensible when it suits them.
It i totally reasonable. See the thing is copyright law doesn't have exceptions in the fair use doctrine for betas or alphas or anything like that. They don't say that a dev can get around fair use by calling their game a beta. It's actually a good representation of how much control devs have over their copyrighted work. If they made every purchaser agree to a similar agreement they could and throwing out terms like fair use or parody wouldn't invalidate the terms you as an end user agreed to. Its just people conveniently choose to play dumb or make exceptions to what they find morally reprehensible when it suits them.
You're talking out of your ass, because all beta testers have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Normally you'd be in trouble for simply posting screenshots or gameplay videos, but the Battleblock NDA is extremely lax and only prohibits reviews, surprisingly allowing everything else.
Crud. I bought my Build-a-Bundle as a single thing instead of splitting it up so I could get a second copy of Luxor 3. Anyone need a single game that either wants me to grab it for them or wants to grab it with an extra Luxor 3 for me?
I'm rather surprised about that as well. Do you know of any other times that's been allowed? Every beta I've been in for awhile has always had a ridiculously strict non-disclosure agreement all over it, not even allowing screenshots of the thing.
Ian Stocker was happy that people were sharing videos of the non-completed version of the game in its various forms - because everyone knew that it was a beta. Hell, he even streamed videos of the game himself. The only reason I didn't share anything is because Youtube is stupid with the whole Google Plus BS.
The final game is very different from most of the footage you can find up there. It's -not- the same game I alpha tested a month and a half ago.
Then again, it's a one-man operation (well okay the game was developed by three people altogether), not a company.
Well, here's where I should clarify my gripe. When people have been getting upset and up in arms about these shady devs sending these take down notices, they do it by citing the fair use doctrine. That these guys have fair use to reproduce copyrighted work in the video because they are the press/media. And to me that's just not the case. These guys aren't journalists reviewing these things neutrally,
There is certainly no requirements for reviews to be neutral nor for reviewers not to have reasons to do what they are doing beyond simply reviewing the works in question. Film reviewers, book reviewers, and art critics all can and many certainly do have their own voice and persona. Roger Ebert was not a featureless voice with no persona.
It i totally reasonable. See the thing is copyright law doesn't have exceptions in the fair use doctrine for betas or alphas or anything like that. They don't say that a dev can get around fair use by calling their game a beta. It's actually a good representation of how much control devs have over their copyrighted work. If they made every purchaser agree to a similar agreement they could and throwing out terms like fair use or parody wouldn't invalidate the terms you as an end user agreed to. Its just people conveniently choose to play dumb or make exceptions to what they find morally reprehensible when it suits them.
Except any time it happens, you've specifically agreed to it. And 90% of the time, it's free. Completely different situations, are you actually saying you are in favour of T&C for individual game purchases?
Nobody's playing dumb or making exceptions. The situations are entirely different.
Wanna know WHY they make you agree to it? Because if they didn't, you could do as much with the footage of the full game. It's expected because the game is unfinished. Guise was presented as a finished product that cost $15. But no, nobody's allowed to shit on it, even if they're not making money. Ridiculous.
I wish there wasn't an NDA, but it's there. Would I be even more against it if it were a paid beta? Absolutely. But the point is, they let you know upfront "Hey, we're gonna let you play some stuff ahead of time so we can fix our game. We just ask that you not review it until it's done. That cool?" "Sure Behemoth, that's cool. Sign me up!". That's the deal, and to me, it's a reasonable deal. What Guise did was not only not previously agreed to (there was no "IF YOU BUY THIS, YOU CAN'T RIP IT A NEW ASSHOLE ON YOUTUBE".), but there was no quid pro quo like a beta registration.
Look, I wasn't even mad earlier while we were arguing, because even though we disagree, it's not like you were being insulting. In fact, I dropped it, but then you and Idiot kept talking, and I eventually joined back in.
I posted some info for people who might wanna know, and I even said "I hate to get preachy, but if you are
against this kind of shit. please do not buy Guise of the Wolf."
I never forced anyone not to buy it. In fact, my first response to you was ->
You're more than welcome to do so. I was recommending you not buying Guise of the Wolf specifically because the devs are censoring shits, not necessarily the bad gameplay.
It's just you can easily buy the bundle WITHOUT Guise of the Wolf and still get everything else. I don't see what the harm is. It's a BaB, so none of the individual games are mandatory or have to get your money. I was just informing people who might be against what they did.
Implying I was okay with you having bought it. Which I am.
But the fact that you've decided to get all snarky, and even want to buy another copy out of pure spite? Now I'm legitimately mad. I thought we were past this shit once glitches became the topic of conversation.
It i totally reasonable. See the thing is copyright law doesn't have exceptions in the fair use doctrine for betas or alphas or anything like that. They don't say that a dev can get around fair use by calling their game a beta. It's actually a good representation of how much control devs have over their copyrighted work. If they made every purchaser agree to a similar agreement they could and throwing out terms like fair use or parody wouldn't invalidate the terms you as an end user agreed to. Its just people conveniently choose to play dumb or make exceptions to what they find morally reprehensible when it suits them.
Until the game is released, it's not legally considered media for fair use laws. It's under trade secrets laws. If you work for a company and you leak unauthorized information about the game that hurts sales, you are fired and you are getting sued for as much as they can take from you. By applying for a closed beta, you are agreeing to be an unpaid tester on their unfinished product. If you leak unauthorized information, they will do the exact same thing - boot you out and sue you.
Authorizing any information release at all is extremely risky when Marketing hasn't had a chance to put their positive spin on it. The fact that they're allowing any kind of video is very generous to the testers, not some draconian move that means they should be condemned. Unreleased software is absolutely subject to different laws than released software, and to say otherwise is either being misinformed about the law or deliberately obtuse.
Until the game is released, it's not legally considered media for fair use laws. It's under trade secrets laws. If you work for a company and you leak unauthorized information about the game that hurts sales, you are fired and you are getting sued for as much as they can take from you. By applying for a closed beta, you are agreeing to be an unpaid tester on their unfinished product. If you leak unauthorized information, they will do the exact same thing - boot you out and sue you.
Authorizing any information release at all is extremely risky when Marketing hasn't had a chance to put their positive spin on it. The fact that they're allowing any kind of video is very generous to the testers, not some draconian move that means they should be condemned. Unreleased software is absolutely subject to different laws than released software, and to say otherwise is either being misinformed about the law or deliberately obtuse.
You actually have no clue what you're talking about. Copyright and trade secret are two completely different things. But anyways, not really important. Let's move on and argue about some other things no one cares about.
You actually have no clue what you're talking about. Copyright and trade secret are two completely different things. But anyways, not really important. Let's move on and argue about some other things no one cares about.
Yes, they are two different things. And a work is legally protected by copyright when it is registered with the copyright office. Any changes to the work after that point require a new submission with a new filing fee. Given that betas are revised and updated regularly, you can see how that might discourage copyrighting a beta. Some companies probably do it, especially in the rare cases where some forms of disclosure are allowed. But it's significantly cheaper and easier to rely on your beta software being "information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage" and using those legal protections instead.
Just wanted to establish that I do indeed have a clue what I'm talking about.
Well, good thing I didn't gift you that game for your love then! Hmph.
(Also, even though I'm straight, I'm a tad heartbroken. Pre-emptive rejection is the worst kind of rejection. Who am I going to pretend to flirt with to make Neuro uncomfortable now? ;_; )
For Neuro only, Banned Reading for Squirrels -
If you must know, I just used it randomly one day and thought it was overly complicated enough that it was kinda funny (a bit of a parody on the three unrelated words of the actual name). That and I hoped it'd catch on because I had a feeling MNS didn't like it all that much, and I enjoyed teasing him.
Yes, they are two different things. And a work is legally protected by copyright when it is registered with the copyright office. Any changes to the work after that point require a new submission with a new filing fee. Given that betas are revised and updated regularly, you can see how that might discourage copyrighting a beta. Some companies probably do it, especially in the rare cases where some forms of disclosure are allowed. But it's significantly cheaper and easier to rely on your beta software being "information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage" and using those legal protections instead.
Just wanted to establish that I do indeed have a clue what I'm talking about.
You actually still don't have any clue what you're talking about.
1. Copyright vests the second a work is created. Even if you make a drawing in your mom's basement and no one ever sees it. Registering it with the copyright is technically a formality, but helps establish date of creation and puts the world on notice.
2. You're talking about the coding of the video game which is separate from what the Battleblock devs are talking about. Whether they registered the coding of the game with the copyright office has nothing to do with the copyright protection of the art in the game. What would be shown in any screenshots, videos, etc. are not code, they are art which is separate and already under copyright protection. The art assets of a game are what gives devs rights to take down videos on youtube, not the copyright of the code. Two completely separate things.
I think this thread has been sullied enough by pointless arguments and misinformation. If you want to learn more about intellectual property law, feel free to PM me.
(Also, even though I'm straight, I'm a tad heartbroken. Pre-emptive rejection is the worst kind of rejection. Who am I going to pretend to flirt with to make Neuro uncomfortable now? ;_; )
) -
's sake, I thought we were past this.
