Clarification of copyright policy

[rusty_shackleford]

Hello HQsers, this is in regard to video game modifications.

I wanted to clarify our approach to the DMCA's repeat infringer policy. RPGHQ will suspend accounts of users who are repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances, as required by law.

There's an important distinction to make here:
For game modifications, even experienced IP lawyers would struggle to determine whether the transformative content is infringing or protected as fair use. Given RPGHQ's limited resources (one employee with a near-zero budget), we cannot function as copyright adjudicators for complex transformative work cases.
Therefore, for transformative works specifically, we will generally rely on legal determinations of infringement when implementing our repeat infringer policy. This balanced approach allows us to meet our legal obligations while avoiding a chilling effect on legitimate creative expression, and avoiding infringement upon the rights of creators.

I am using Nimmer on Copyright, Volume 4, 12b.10 as the source for this decision. Nimmer's legal treatises are highly regarded in the area of copyright law.

[Vergil]

laugh out loud

[dagal]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[loregamer]

Enough about copyright. Let's talk about copywrong

[Statesman]

Enough about copyright. Let's talk about copywrong

I heard Hollywood actually prefers copyleft.

[Stack of Turtles]

Incidentally, since, to my knowledge, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not provide for a definition of "repeat infringers", I think it would be wise to make a good-faith effort to clarify that definition for the purposes of your policy. In particular, to protect users from the possibility of having their accounts wrongfully terminated due to the actions of copyright trolls, I think it should be limited to those cases where infringement has been proven in a court of law in multiple separate instances.

Mere receipt of a takedown notice, even if it is uncontested, does not constitute legal proof of infringement and should not be regarded as such. All users are innocent until proven guilty.

[rusty_shackleford]

Incidentally, since, to my knowledge, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not provide for a definition of "repeat infringers", I think it would be wise to make a good-faith effort to clarify that definition for the purposes of your policy. In particular, to protect users from the possibility of having their accounts wrongfully terminated due to the actions of copyright trolls, I think it should be limited to those cases where infringement has been proven in a court of law in multiple separate instances.

Mere receipt of a takedown notice, even if it is uncontested, does not constitute legal proof of infringement and should not be regarded as such. All users are innocent until proven guilty.

Hmmm... After checking the relevant material, I concur.
The content hosted here is not the same as someone uploading music or a movie, it is all transformative in nature. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a judge. I can't tell you if Tipfy's mod is fair use(for various reasons - It's just config files, it's a social commentary on the existing work, etc.,). I don't know.
And I don't want to implement a policy that unfairly punished my users.

[Humbaba]

EA has thoroughly broken roosty's buck straight over their knee. They know that he would never in a million years take this to court. Now we wait until Vergil informs Larian and other studios of the mods we have here and roosty will have no other option than to remove them. Sad!

[rusty_shackleford]

EA has thoroughly broken roosty's buck straight over their knee. They know that he would never in a million years take this to court. Now we wait until Vergil informs Larian and other studios of the mods we have here and roosty will have no other option than to remove them. Sad!

Actually, I updated the OP.

[Humbaba]

Actually, I updated the OP.

So you're gonna take EA to court now or what

[fkirenicus]

Actually, I updated the OP.

So you're gonna take EA to court now or what

Humbaba does raise some good points now and again, but now Humbaba is preaching humbug.

[rusty_shackleford]

Actually, I updated the OP.

So you're gonna take EA to court now or what

It's not my responsibility, I am merely a humble platform provider trying my best to understand law that is clear as mud. :weeb: