EA Sports UFC Will Not Have Fighter Share, Will Release Late Spring - Possibly Summer

[Coolade]

Don't forget ea MMA had fighter share and due to legal problems caused by it, had to start blocking key words for the names of created fighters, that were in the UFC etc. It's not an excuse it just practicality and smart thinking.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Coolade

Don't forget ea MMA had fighter share and due to legal problems caused by it, had to start blocking key words for the names of created fighters, that were in the UFC etc. It's not an excuse it just practicality and smart thinking.

Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation.

Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature.

With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.

[elgreazy1]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation. Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature. With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.

It just seems silly that the more we get online and the more we focus on connectivity and user content creation the more corporations are trying to take it away from being sharable content. That makes no sense in this point in time when knowledge, information, and engagement is so pivotal in gaming, tech and social realms.

[Irishwhiskey119]

EA loves ****ing games up.

That company deserves to die like blockbuster. lol

I was excited for this game but EA can't stop themselves from ****ing over fans so they can draw more money from them every year.

[Azamien]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation. Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature. With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.

That's all well and good as long as Paramount, in your example, decides that it's only an issue worthy of a take-down order and not a lawsuit. It only takes one trademark or copyright holder to decide that EA is profiting from their IP and suddenly this franchise gets O'Bannoned.

Ask any number of file sharing services and sites how the "we only host, we don't create" defence has worked out for them. As for YouTube, they can be held liable, which is why they bend over backwards to respond to take-down orders, to the point of taking down videos they shouldn't have to, just to cover their very vulnerable asses.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Azamien

That's all well and good as long as Paramount, in your example, decides that it's only an issue worthy of a take-down order and not a lawsuit. It only takes one trademark or copyright holder to decide that EA is profiting from their IP and suddenly this franchise gets O'Bannoned. Ask any number of file sharing services and sites how the "we only host, we don't create" defence has worked out for them. As for YouTube, they can be held liable, which is why they bend over backwards to respond to take-down orders, to the point of taking down videos they shouldn't have to, just to cover their very vulnerable asses.

Wrong. The O'bannon comparison doesnt work. In NCAA, EA was creating players with similar likenesses, numbers, height and weight to real people. EA was doing the creating. The issue with EA was never the fact that people could edit the players.....it was that EA was using likenesses even before people edited the game.

There are very few things I know about and this is one of them. I serve as litigation counsel for one of the biggest media companies in the world. We deal with both sides of this issue. People using our content and people posting other people's content on our sites.

You couldnt be more wrong about Youtube. They dont bend over backwards. I'll give you an example: Lets say you post one of my company's shows on Youtube. I see it and I send Youtube a takedown notice and they immediately take it down. That should be it right? Nope. Youtube will send you a takedown notification and all you have to do is say "That content is owned by me" without providing any evidence that it is....and Youtube will restore the video to your account.

The only option my company has is to file suit (which costs us money) and forward the complaint to Youtube. Youtube will then take down the video until the matter is resolved. We dont have an option to sue Youtube and if we did the case would be dismissed under the DMCA. Same goes for EA.

There are hundreds of file share sites that have used the "we only host" defense for years and have been very successful. The ones that fail are the ones like MegaUpload that refuse to respond to DMCA takedown notices or dont have a takedown policy.

EA is overreacting to Obannon when it has nothing to do with fighter share. They are two different things.

[vthallman]

I think this has very little to do with property rights and everything to do with DLC sales. Don't let their smokescreen fool you. That's where EAs making a killing now and CAF sharing would significantly cut into those sales. Can't really blame them.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by vthallman

I think this has very little to do with property rights and everything to do with DLC sales. Don't let their smokescreen fool you. That's where EAs making a killing now and CAF sharing would significantly cut into those sales. Can't really blame them.

I dont know about that. Using FNC as an example, there are a few Vitali and Wladamir K. CAFs that can be downloaded for free through Fighter Share but I (and I think most people) would rather spend 5 bucks and get the EA licensed version with the correct gear, ratings and facial features.