2 ms·

On the high level, copyright is a mechanism allowing to make profits from intellectual property. Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants int

On the high level, copyright is a mechanism allowing to make profits from intellectual property. Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Giving transcriptions for free and not even making money with advertisements on the web is not, and I would be interested to see a court case against a person doing that. Even if that’s a copyright violation that’s still reasonable. The copyright owner can assume that at least some of the people who have download free transcriptions would otherwise go to a music store and pay them for the license. The transcriber has caused monetary losses to copyright holder. But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games.

klodolph 5y ago
> Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Maybe the law should work that way, but it definitely doesn't work that way. > Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Fair use has four factors, and whether the infringing party is making profit is only one of the four factors. You can also get sued for photocopying sheet music you legally purchased, when you're not making any money from the copies or from the performances. It has happened because selling sheet music is the primary way some composers make money in the first place, and so much of the case law around music dates back to an era where that was just how music was published. > But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games. These kinds of arguments don't have any legal basis. You can argue for changes in copyright law all you like. Your original comment was about the legality, and that's what I'm responding to.

klodolph 5y ago

> Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Maybe the law should work that way, but it definitely doesn't work that way. > Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Fair use has four factors, and whether the infringing party is making profit is only one of the four factors. You can also get sued for photocopying sheet music you legally purchased, when you're not making any money from the copies or from the performances. It has happened because selling sheet music is the primary way some composers make money in the first place, and so much of the case law around music dates back to an era where that was just how music was published. > But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games. These kinds of arguments don't have any legal basis. You can argue for changes in copyright law all you like. Your original comment was about the legality, and that's what I'm responding to.