Legal question regarding draft classes

[T4VERTS]

As I have discussed in the IMV thread multiple times, you have to be careful when you build a feature into a game with the sole purpose to infringe on someones intellectual property. What you possibly become liable for is contributory infringement, it's the same thing that took Napster down. It is the act of inducing, causing, or materially supporting the infringement by others. I don't think EA is at risk here because of how they position the feature, however other games I don't believe have that protection because of the ways they have marketed and positioned their editor/import features.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

As I have discussed in the IMV thread multiple times, you have to be careful when you build a feature into a game with the sole purpose to infringe on someones intellectual property. What you possibly become liable for is contributory infringement, it's the same thing that took Napster down. It is the act of inducing, causing, or materially supporting the infringement by others. I don't think EA is at risk here because of how they position the feature, however other games I don't believe have that protection because of the ways they have marketed and positioned their editor/import features.

I think the difference was Napsters only purpose was to facilitate file sharing whereas the EA roster share is just one small portion of a product that works towards entertainment on its own merit

And your comment about it's "sole purpose" in regards to roster share or draft class share is inaccurate IMO.

Just last night I was looking at rosters and draft classes and I see all sorts of files being shared, not just ones regarding modern day, "really like the NFL or NCAA" of which we speak.

Granted a lot of people, including myself, only would want to use the draft class share, for example, to get modern day NCAA athletes to draft. That is true. But that is not the only purpose set forth for these share features.

I'm speaking legally. To prove that would be considerably difficult and showing a judge or jury the sheer variety alone on there as of today would make it nearly impossible.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

I think the difference was Napsters only purpose was to facilitate file sharing whereas the EA roster share is just one small portion of a product that works towards entertainment on its own merit And your comment about it's "sole purpose" in regards to roster share or draft class share is inaccurate IMO. Just last night I was looking at rosters and draft classes and I see all sorts of files being shared, not just ones regarding modern day, "really like the NFL or NCAA" of which we speak. Granted a lot of people, including myself, only would want to use the draft class share, for example, to get modern day NCAA athletes to draft. That is true. But that is not the only purpose set forth for these share features. I'm speaking legally. To prove that would be considerably difficult and showing a judge or jury the sheer variety alone on there as of today would make it nearly impossible.

I think you misread my whole response. I said EA isn't at risk because of how they have positioned the feature (i.e. not as marketed infringement tool) and how it's used. I was pointing out that similar products (other games) have major issues here because of their intended purpose and how the feature is marketed. I will say your "speaking legally" comment wouldn't be a valid defense as Napster tried a similar defense showing that there was plenty of licensed paid content moving across their network to make it a legitimate tool with other major uses, similar to the VCR defense in Sony vs Universal City Studios. File sharing is not intrinsically illegal, it is only illegal to share files that are not licensed in a way to be shared. Napster was no illegal by it's very nature, but the court ruled that it's intended use had far been surpassed by it's illicit use. EA I think is still in bounds in terms of not being a massive infringement tool.

The issue in many cases comes down to willful facilitation versus incidental facilitation. When a company willfully facilitates the actions, or ignores obvious infringement occurring, they have waded into contributory infringement. While there are other variables at play in these cases, another major factor protecting EA in this case is their deep pockets and some gray areas in terms of "art". One could argue that these classes are artistic uses of the likenesses and therefor free use. Similar to a painting or a bio film, they can be subjects of artistic expression without needing licensing.

Side note, not a lawyer, however deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis for my job and have a little history on this issue.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

I think you misread my whole response. I said EA isn't at risk because of how they have positioned the feature (i.e. not as marketed infringement tool) and how it's used. I was pointing out that similar products (other games) have major issues here because of their intended purpose and how the feature is marketed. I will say your "speaking legally" comment wouldn't be a valid defense as Napster tried a similar defense showing that there was plenty of licensed paid content moving across their network to make it a legitimate tool with other major uses, similar to the VCR defense in Sony vs Universal City Studios. File sharing is not intrinsically illegal, it is only illegal to share files that are not licensed in a way to be shared. Napster was no illegal by it's very nature, but the court ruled that it's intended use had far been surpassed by it's illicit use. EA I think is still in bounds in terms of not being a massive infringement tool. The issue in many cases comes down to willful facilitation versus incidental facilitation. When a company willfully facilitates the actions, or ignores obvious infringement occurring, they have waded into contributory infringement. While there are other variables at play in these cases, another major factor protecting EA in this case is their deep pockets and some gray areas in terms of "art". One could argue that these classes are artistic uses of the likenesses and therefor free use. Similar to a painting or a bio film, they can be subjects of artistic expression without needing licensing. Side note, not a lawyer, however deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis for my job and have a little history on this issue.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, I guess we are in agreement then.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

Ok, thanks for clarifying, I guess we are in agreement then.

Yes, they are good for a multitude of reasons. Similar setups may not be though for various different reasons. It's why on the surface, just saying one group does it one way so everyone can is a dangerous way to assume your in good legal standing.