Yeah. I just want to know who was the one that fucked up, legal-wise. Because Rockstar's gonna want their money back.Spinozaad said:
Brazilian Court Bans Sale of Gay Tony But Not For What You Think
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
lol Brazilian Justin Bieber wants his money from big bad Rockstar.
Or maybe this is punishment for putting such a bad song in the game? lol
Or maybe this is punishment for putting such a bad song in the game? lol
That's what I was thinking.SilentHunter7 said:But if the signatures were of the producers who owned the track, then it shouldn't matter. I predict either a quick injunction followed by overturn in appeals, or Rockstar patching the song out, and suing the producers. Who will sue the artist.Greg Tito said:
Also, I highlighted some grammatical and spelling errors. Though to be fair, I probably wouldn't have even noticed if Firefox didn't have spell check.
Whoever Rockstar bought the copyrights off of, either owned them or lied about it.
If the publishing/production company do own it, by having a distro contract with the father, then the Brazilian gov has nothing to stand on.
If they dont, then they (the publisher) stole the song and will probably get sued by Rockstar and then the father.
Wow... a legal action against a reasonable motive on gaming industry? You don't see that everyday.
Although I do agree the worldwide ban decision to be laughable since I hardly believe that's going to happens, there are some rather weird points...
Rockstar forging a fake signature only to put one single song on the game? That's just weird.
The court not sending a notice to the developers they're being fined? That's just as awkward.
The way Justice works here, it will take a while before things are settled but I doubt the sales will be affected on any way.
Also, why the torches to defend Rockstar, people? If it's proven they broke the law, they got to pay for it. They might just prove the signature is official or come up with an agreement with the boy either way.
Although I do agree the worldwide ban decision to be laughable since I hardly believe that's going to happens, there are some rather weird points...
Rockstar forging a fake signature only to put one single song on the game? That's just weird.
The court not sending a notice to the developers they're being fined? That's just as awkward.
The way Justice works here, it will take a while before things are settled but I doubt the sales will be affected on any way.
Also, why the torches to defend Rockstar, people? If it's proven they broke the law, they got to pay for it. They might just prove the signature is official or come up with an agreement with the boy either way.
What's the release date got to do with it?The Procrastinated End said:
What if Rockstar had included a song I wrote and recorded back in high school in the game, and I had no idea about it until today. Is Rockstar allowed to infringe on my copyrights and then put a timer on me, so that I have to catch them within a certain amount of time for it to count? There should be reasonable statutory limitations here, but it's certainly not "months"-- probably more like many years.
These are civil, not criminal proceedings. For content not actually authored by Rockstar, the burden of proof is on them to show that they secured the proper rights. According to this court, they didn't. I'm not sure how that happened, but there is absolutely no question about the fact that other countries who have signed treaties to respect international copyright law are now bound to prohibit sales of this content, as it is infringing on the rights of a citizen of another signatory country.
This is Brazil and other countries doing what we complain China doesn't do-- actually stop people from selling things they don't own.
Practically all escapist members posting ITT rolled a critical fail on their intelligence rolls. Really, some 90% of the posts fail to grasp what this is about. The comments that manage to tie this to piracy somehow are the most hilarious; it is as if the thinking goes: "hey, this is about copyright. Copyright is vaguely related to piracy, therefore this is about piracy".
Anyways, it is pretty obvious that if the ruling is correct, and all proper procedures have been upheld, this ruling is only fair. If a person has ownership to a song, others are not allowed to infringe upon them, no matter how large they are - frankly, I am disgusted by the posters implying that Rockstar should be free to break the law and take others work only because they're a big gaming company.
Anyways, it is pretty obvious that if the ruling is correct, and all proper procedures have been upheld, this ruling is only fair. If a person has ownership to a song, others are not allowed to infringe upon them, no matter how large they are - frankly, I am disgusted by the posters implying that Rockstar should be free to break the law and take others work only because they're a big gaming company.
Just patch the song out. Really, please patch this crappy piece of garbage out. This so-called song made me want to gouge out my eardrums. Easily the single most annoying part of the game. They'd be doing their customers a huge favor if they'd just replace this "music" with the sounds of cows being run over by trains instead.
