Gridiron Champions Has a Release Date, College Football Returns in 2020

[jfsolo]

It's interesting that there is all this back and forth about customization, infringement, and such when the likelihood of their actually being a playable game to apply these issues to seems exceedingly low.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

It's interesting that there is all this back and forth about customization, infringement, and such when the likelihood of their actually being a playable game to apply these issues to seems exceedingly low.

That is true. To me the lack of foresight on the legal front is one of the main red flags to me that tells me the guys running this thing don't have the business know how to pull it off.

[roadman]

And in case anyone doesn't see this article on the front page, this is a good article to read on the topic.

https://www.operationsports.com/we-s...-sports-games/

[CujoMatty]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

This is resoundingly false. The liability does not get passed, it actually gets shared through contributory infringement as well as vicarious liability. You say you don't care about their intent, but this is actually part of contributory infringement. The safe harbor statement doesn't dissolve their liability unless they actively monitor their system and remove all attempts to infringe, or make a good faith effort to. People keep confusing the fact others have done it and not been sued with the idea that it is legal. Napster literally got taken down for the same thing, they had a system that facilitated in the infringement of IP but they actually had better defense. Napster's software was not designed with the idea to steal music but rather to easily share files peer to peer. IMV has an issue in that their proposed customization component was expressly created to allow their users to infringe on protected IP, this all from the company's official twitter account to boot. As I have pointed out in other places, others get away with it because they are allowed to not because it's legal. When all these games get to the consoles there will be issues because more eyes end up on it. A 2k is more likely to weather a legal onslaught because they have lawyers on staff that can handle the cease and desists and go back and forth buying them time. 2k also has the advantage that their customization was not built for the stated purpose of infringement, it is a by product of the system. These smaller studios don't have the legal war chest to handle even a few legal challenges, and they don't have good legal footing to stand on even if they wanted to.

You clearly know what you’re talking about I can’t dispute that. There is zero precedence when it comes to video games and creation options. I have never heard of a case being heard for it but maybe I’m wrong. What you’re saying legally is very hard to prove but maybe tweets saying the customization would be used for infringement is enough but I still find it very unlikely. The fact is there are so many games that are doing exactly what this game is saying they will do. Iit seems to me that people are genuinely concerned that for some reason anytime anyone mentions NCAA and video game that it won’t happen because the developers will get sued into the Stone Age. The basis for that seems to be based on what happened to EA but it’s completely apples and oranges.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by CujoMatty

You clearly know what you’re talking about I can’t dispute that. There is zero precedence when it comes to video games and creation options. I have never heard of a case being heard for it but maybe I’m wrong. What you’re saying legally is very hard to prove but maybe tweets saying the customization would be used for infringement is enough but I still find it very unlikely. The fact is there are so many games that are doing exactly what this game is saying they will do. Iit seems to me that people are genuinely concerned that for some reason anytime anyone mentions NCAA and video game that it won’t happen because the developers will get sued into the Stone Age. The basis for that seems to be based on what happened to EA but it’s completely apples and oranges.

You really don't need precedent that is related to video games here. It is a pretty cut and dry example of vicarious liability as well as Contributory infringement. As for tweets being enough to prove it, they don't even have to prove intent in reality, but they can with what has been put into the public domain along with what they would find in discovery searching communications between the founders as well as their community reps. Contributory infringement doesn't even require the offender to know they infringed just have to show that they should know it is being used for it, which the company obviously does.

I am not using what happened to EA at all here, that is actually one of the fallacies going on right now with people thinking they are legally okay. EA had a license of schools and NCAA logos, which are owned by far more powerful organizations than player likeness. EA was taken out by the least powerful player in this whole thing. IMV and similar people are going after the IP owners that have the legal means to really do damage (NCAA/ Schools).

In reality what is happening is people are willing to screw over people's intellectual property to get what they want, in this case a college football game.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by CujoMatty

You clearly know what you’re talking about I can’t dispute that. There is zero precedence when it comes to video games and creation options. I have never heard of a case being heard for it but maybe I’m wrong. What you’re saying legally is very hard to prove but maybe tweets saying the customization would be used for infringement is enough but I still find it very unlikely. The fact is there are so many games that are doing exactly what this game is saying they will do. Iit seems to me that people are genuinely concerned that for some reason anytime anyone mentions NCAA and video game that it won’t happen because the developers will get sued into the Stone Age. The basis for that seems to be based on what happened to EA but it’s completely apples and oranges.

I don't think anyone's opinion on this is anymore valid than anyone else's, including yours, so don't defer. You make good points that have been made time and again, with some historic evidence that backs it up. At the end of the day what matters most is that other games have been able to get away with customization, for whatever reason and it would be great if more football games going forward were able to accomplish the same thing.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I don't think anyone's opinion on this is anymore valid than anyone else's, including yours, so don't defer. You make good points that have been made time and again, with some historic evidence that backs it up. At the end of the day what matters most is that other games have been able to get away with customization, for whatever reason and it would be great if more football games going forward were able to accomplish the same thing.

METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. et al. v. GROKSTER, LTD., et al.

That is case law that shows why it is illegal if you'd like to learn. Again, because no one has gone down for it yet in this arena doesn't mean they won't. Security in obscurity exists in a lot of these cases. Other guys did it too is not a legal defense when someone goes down for it finally.

[Unlucky 13]

So, what if they were to put a game out that allows the user to edit and create anything that they wish, but with no online aspect and no ability to share with others? Basically, taking it back to the early PS2 days. Would that be viable?