EU Parliament Passes Articles 11/13

[JadedLexi]

Cue the Doomsaying in this thread which I have explicitly warned you against, hardcore_gamer. That goes for everyone else too. Discuss this properly.
edit: and no, I am not asking for an essay on why this is important. I know why.

[Armaetus]

So how exactly do the EU Doomers express their displeasure in the real world against this gigantic piece of shit legislation that only benefits a handful of tech companies and bureaucrats? (the ones who voted FOR this shit, that is)

[JadedLexi]

So how exactly do the EU Doomers express their displeasure in the real world against this gigantic piece of shit legislation that only benefits a handful of tech companies and bureaucrats? (the ones who voted FOR this shit, that is)

The same way you would normally express displeasure for something. Not by making posts like that in this thread constantly for one.

[Hellser]

Article 13 applies to any website operating in EU territories. A vast majority of Doom websites do not operate in EU territories, and yes. That includes ZDoom. From what I can see of the new law, it's meant to protect content creators - which is no different than what YouTube has been doing for years. They are not controlling what you see, and if you want to go through the law and find that specific part that has you scared, go ahead.

[hardcore_gamer]

Article 13 applies to any website operating in EU territories. A vast majority of Doom websites do not operate in EU territories, and yes. That includes ZDoom. From what I can see of the new law, it's meant to protect content creators - which is no different than what YouTube has been doing for years. They are not controlling what you see, and if you want to go through the law and find that specific part that has you scared, go ahead.

The law makes it mandatory to install content filters (which only the rich companies will afford, and even for them it would be super expensive) that block all content that don't 100% belong to the person posting it. This would break the entire internet. It would not be possible for example to take a screenshot from a game you are playing and then share it with others because you don't own the copyright to the game. Game mods would also be illegal for the same reason for anybody to make and share within the EU. That includes Doom mods.
User was warned for this post.-JadedLexi

[JadedLexi]

What did I just say about the doomsaying?

[phantombeta]

That includes Doom mods.

Except it doesn't. We actually have outright permission* from Id Software to mod the game.

(* Hint, read classic Doom's EULA)

[Hellser]

The law makes it mandatory to install content filters (which only the rich companies will afford, and even for them it would be super expensive) that block all content that don't 100% belong to the person posting it. This would break the entire internet. It would not be possible for example to take a screenshot from a game you are playing and then share it with others because you don't own the copyright to the game. Game mods would also be illegal for the same reason for anybody to make and share within the EU. That includes Doom mods.

Screenshots are covered by the EULA and TOS that you agree to for a game. Only company that I know is against people even sharing videos of their games is Nintendo. For proof, here's Bethesda's policy on videos, which will also cover screenshots.

As for game mods, see what was posted above. Check the EULA or TOS before coming here and saying all is lost.

[hardcore_gamer]

The law makes it mandatory to install content filters (which only the rich companies will afford, and even for them it would be super expensive) that block all content that don't 100% belong to the person posting it. This would break the entire internet. It would not be possible for example to take a screenshot from a game you are playing and then share it with others because you don't own the copyright to the game. Game mods would also be illegal for the same reason for anybody to make and share within the EU. That includes Doom mods.

Screenshots are covered by the EULA and TOS that you agree to for a game. Only company that I know is against people even sharing videos of their games is Nintendo. For proof, here's Bethesda's policy on videos, which will also cover screenshots.

As for game mods, see what was posted above. Check the EULA or TOS before coming here and saying all is lost.

As far as I understand, the problem isn't that these companies are against people modding their games/taking screenshots. The problem is that in order to get past the upload filters/upload content, you have to actually prove that you have permission. Other companies merely claiming on another site or in their terms of service that they are ok with others uploading such content would not be enough. If this is wrong then somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand this is how it works. An automatic content filter isn't going to understand the context in which content is uploaded, only if somebody else owns said copyright. Imagine if every single modder and Doom player had to contact the rightowners of Doom for every single mod and screenshot every single time such things are uploaded and shared. As far as I understand that is how this will work.

[Hellser]

I am sure companies will have to supply these scanners with sources of copyright material that they own in order to detect a copyright infringement or to file a claim. These scanners don't know anything unless a source material is given. So... yeah, I don't think video game companies are going to harm themselves by having videos of their product not be shown on Let's Players YouTube channels.

[hardcore_gamer]

I am sure companies will have to supply these scanners with sources of copyright material that they own in order to detect a copyright infringement or claim. These scanners don't know anything unless a source material is given.

True, but how are the scanners suppose to tell the difference between a screenshot from a game mod and other types of content for example? Consider the 2 following scenarios:

1. Somebody takes an official Doom screenshot without permission and uses it in a way that is not intended.
2. Somebody takes a screenshot during gameplay that features some of the content (monsters, items, HUD etc) from the official screenshot.

How is the content filter suppose to understand the difference? Humans are not making these decisions, AI is. It doesn't understand context.

And the same question can be asked for game mods. Consider all the custom monsters for Doom that look similar to the originals. What's stopping the content filters from thinking they are the original Doom monsters or attempts to rip them off for illegal purposes? This is the problem with AI and automatic filters.

[Hellser]

1. Somebody takes an official Doom screenshot without permission and uses it in a way that is not intended.
2. Somebody takes a screenshot during gameplay that features some of the content (monsters, items, HUD etc) from the official screenshot.

We encourage (and are big supporters of) the many fan videos created by our community that use assets from our games – including, but not limited to “Let’s Play” videos, instructional videos demonstrating our modding tools, and fan service tributes using gameplay and music from our games. We are okay with (and encourage) these fan videos being posted on video services like YouTube or on your personal website and/or blog.

I'm getting a bit annoyed here, now. You're repeating yourself and I'm repeating myself. I think it's safe to say that you are not going to change your mind. Unless you are uploading movies (and by movies, I mean things like.. Doom (Unrated) 2005.mp4) to YouTube or similar, you are not going to be affected that much (or you're a meme creator, but.. heh..). Video games are mostly safe.

[gwHero]

Better start doom modding instead of doom thinking

[Chris]

From what I can see of the new law, it's meant to protect content creators - which is no different than what YouTube has been doing for years.

You say that as if Youtube's ContentID has been a success that people like. People were against it with its inclusion and are still against it today. It has made and continues to make a number of false flags (usually to the benefit of large corporations and the detriment of small time or indie creators). It may not be as bad today, but that's only because a number of companies have given a blanket okay for allowing the supposedly-infringing content to stay up (just with revenue from the video in question being redirected, or forcing unmonetized videos to become ad-laden with the revenue going to the claimant). It's not much of a surprise that many people who started making a living creating content on youtube has had to switch to (or do in addition with) twitch streaming and patreon, both of which largely avoid ContentID issues.

Ironically, the best people have been able to say in support of ContentID is that it's not censorship because it's not the government doing it, or that it keeps the government off their backs. Well...

[JadedLexi]

From what I can see of the new law, it's meant to protect content creators - which is no different than what YouTube has been doing for years.

You say that as if Youtube's ContentID has been a success that people like.

I don't think that's what he implied at all, way to take it out of context.