Backbreaker Preview (Xbox 360 Magazine)

[CharleyDanger]

Ok I found out about the Marvel law suit. The lawsuit was filed against the publisher of City of Heros, NCsoft, and the developer Cryptic Studios.

The case was not thrown out entirely, only certain key elements. There was some type of settlement that has not been disclosed.

It turns out that much of the infringed content was created by Marvel, meaning that Marvel created characters in City of Heros to help their lawsuit. Also that that the infringing content was small enough to be considered under the protection of the DMCA.

Source: http://www.megagames.com/news/marvel...-heroes-part-1

Like I have said before, the major difference with BB will be the insane amount of infringing content, it will be unprecedented honestly. 700 players, 32 teams, and here is the key... MILLIONS sharing it. The NFL will sh!t its self LOL

I would like to quote the judge from the above case

"Only ...where a computer system operator is aware of specific infringing material on the computer system, and fails to remove it, the system operator contributes to infringement, the Court stated"

This proves my position. If NatMo did nothing while millions of its user were using an illegal recreation of the NFL, then NatMo would be held liable.

[t11]

WOO! You finally got a case that was closed to support your position! ARGUMENT OVER!

Finally

[SouthernBrick]

Quote: Originally Posted by t11

BUT, lets not turn this into another content sharing thread lol. This preview is promising but I can't wait to here more next week!

Could you estimate roughly what day some more info could drop?

Is it going to be on monday or tuesday or are we going to have to wait forever(exaggeration) until friday or something?

[t11]

Well, the latest we should have to wait according to my mathematical model would be friday. But Rob hinted the embargo lifts first week of March. Which is this week!

[SouthernBrick]

Quote: Originally Posted by t11

Well, the latest we should have to wait according to my mathematical model would be friday. But Rob hinted the embargo lifts first week of March. Which is this week!

Lets see...Combine, check. More info on BB, check. My junkie football habit is being fueled. Can't wait to try out the new product in May.

[Tito78]

Quote: Originally Posted by CharleyDanger

"Only ...where a computer system operator is aware of specific infringing material on the computer system, and fails to remove it, the system operator contributes to infringement, the Court stated" This proves my position. If NatMo did nothing while millions of its user were using an illegal recreation of the NFL, then NatMo would be held liable.

The "infringing material" isn't on the computer system. The user is putting the would be infringing material on their own personal computer system. There's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes a problem when 505 games or NatMo (themselves) makes it possible to download or share the "infringing material."

Honestly, this isn't a matter of if we get the rosters: it's a matter of where, or from whom, we get those rosters.

[CharleyDanger]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tito78

The "infringing material" isn't on the computer system. The user is putting the would be infringing material on their own personal computer system. There's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes a problem when 505 games or NatMo (themselves) makes it possible to download or share the "infringing material." Honestly, this isn't a matter of if we get the rosters: it's a matter of where, or from whom, we get those rosters.

Right, I have always said that as long as it was not shared with an in game tool that NatMo should be able to avoid liability.

But now that I think about it, if you used the content online then NatMo would be held liable. During an online game BB is no different than any other online game. Take down orders are sent to online games all the time.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by CharleyDanger

Very good post, many solid points. Yet the lawsuit states "EA Sports "intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing student-athletes' names by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players' names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds." This speaks to the shared content aspect of the game. I think creation and editing in games will be just fine imo. The DMCA even says if companies are at least trying to prevent infringement then the companies are in the clear. If the companies just remove content sharing as a in game tool then I think they will avoid liability 99% of the time.

Yes, I understand that as long as the end-user is left responsible there is no real worry. But when situations like the one possible go down, companies tend to throw their hands up and distance themselves from the problem as much as possible. It's no different from how many companies refuse to allow people to go online with their own logos, because of the fear of someone doing something obscene, so they just don't include the feature at all. I think that's why NM made it where BackBreaker's user logos online can only be seen by people approved on a friends list. They must've been very concerned with the legal ramifications and they should be of course. But to be sure, they are bold here because most companies simply wouldn't touch the idea.

The other part of that is this... as long as there are roster files and memory cards, sharing can never be stopped, and sharing is the most important thing in regards to rosters for an NCAA game. So how would a company prevent it? They'd have to 86 editing, because if they don't, the "uploading" scenario contained in the claim continues... unless they make it where a user can edit but can't share files, meaning they can't put them on memory cards either. But I see that as somewhat pointless since in reality NCAA rosters for example are usually made by just a few people and then used by thousands. The average person isn't spending all that time to edit the files just for himself. It would be considered unnecessary programming on the part of a major company to keep a feature in that they know 90+% of their fanbase is not going to use, and we all know what large companies usually do with those things... they trash them and replace it with a "new" feature.