Yeah, he makes a point in his video. However, every contract must have at least two parties. It doesn't matter if Machinima or MS wrote that line of the contract. Both enterprises have lawyers, both enterprises have equal bargaining power in the context of the agreement, both enterprises are privy to the same information, and both enterprises are savvy in their respective industries. Whether Machinima wrote that condition or not, Microsoft - who's lawyers really should have known better - knew of it, acquiesced to it, stamped it, and passed it on. It is as though they wrote it themselves, even if in fact they didn't.CriticalMiss said:For youtube videos do this minus the spaces:TomWiley said:Edit: how the hell do you embed things in this forum? Nvm, I'll just drop the link...
[ youtube = ###### ]
Where ##### is the part of the url after 'watch?v='
So your video would be
[ youtube = 9CnSIJJNjIs ]
I hope that helps.
OT: I think this is probably going to backfire for Microsoft in that people now know they have been buying positive opinions. No doubt they have given a few reviewers/websites a 'goody bag' for their reviews on Xbone titles.
Unless, Machinima's NDA with Youtube content makers was completely separate from Machinima's promotion contract with Microsoft. Only this way could one say that Machinima is truly the party that issued an offending contract condition. Yet, even then, Microsoft could have, should have - and in all likelyhood - would have, reviewed the NDA as it would at least be a link between their agreement with Machinima and possible subsequent agreement between Machinima and youtube content makers.
There is no way Microsoft escapes at least a share of blame, and looking very stupid.